Thabiti Anyabwile Posts – The Gospel Coalitionhttps://www.thegospelcoalition.org
The Gospel CoalitionWed, 19 Dec 2018 05:04:42 +0000en-UShourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.4PureChurchBloghttps://feedburner.google.comFor All the Oppressed: A Response to Mr. Steve Deacehttps://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/oppressed-response-mr-steve-deace/
Mon, 02 Jul 2018 20:35:30 +0000http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/?post_type=thabiti-anyabwile&p=148999Let us, by grace and with faith, be about the weightier matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness—for all who are oppressed.]]>

A handful of folks on Twitter tagged me with a link to Steve Deace’s reaction to my recent WaPo editorial. If you haven’t already, please take a moment to first read my editorial and then read Mr. Deace’s reaction. It will help if you actually read each author in order in their own words and not depend on their representation of each other.

Go ahead . . . take a moment to read both.

Okay . . . you’re back.There are three kinds of people in his article: flawed men, straw men, and idolatrous men. Here’s what I’d like to say in reaction to Mr. Deace’s piece.

Flawed Men

Mr. Deace contends that all men are flawed—sometimes tragically so—but God can and does use them.

I entirely agree with him on this point. My op-ed is not about whether God can and is using President Trump (or any other flawed leader). I believe God can and, in fact, is using President Trump. But saying that isn’t saying much. We have to move on to ask some more difficult questions about how and where God might be at work in this or any presidency. Is God judging the country as some Christians proclaim? Is God saving the country as other Christians maintain?

The truth is probably in the middle. If righteous rulers are a blessing to a nation, and we conclude that President Trump is not all that righteous, then it seems there’s reason to be concerned at least about God withholding his blessing in some way and perhaps reason to be concerned for God’s judgment. After all, if I understand Romans 1:18-32, which comes well before Romans 13:1-7, God is right now revealing his wrath against all the ungodliness of men. Bible Christians would do well to ask how that may be happening and how we might intercede for righteousness and for “all who are destitute” (Prov. 31:8)—not just the group of destitute persons we care most about.

On the other hand, we also have to stop to consider how God may be using an unrighteous ruler to advance righteousness in other quarters. After all, the Lord used a pagan king to grant permission for the rebuilding of Jerusalem (see Ezra and Nehemiah). He turns the hearts of rulers as if turning the course of water (Prov. 21:1). So, it’s right to have some prayerful hope that a pro-life or anti-abortion judge might be nominated and that such a nomination might be confirmed and lead to overturning Roe v. Wade, or at least extending greater latitude to the states for militating against abortion. That would be a tremendous blessing from God. One that Christians (the entire country really!) should celebrate.

In either case, Deace is certainly correct that the Lord uses flawed men to do his will. The question before us isn’t whether that’s the case but what is God’s will and where should we join it.

Straw Men

Overall, I think Mr. Deace fills his piece with straw men. It begins with the title of his piece, “Pastor: Keep Killing Babies Because I Hate Trump.” That’s certainly click-bait worthy of our hot-take age. But it’s not at all a representation of what I wrote in my op-ed. If the first duty of debate is to represent your opponent in a fashion that he could recognize himself, then Mr. Deace fails at job one.

In the second line of the piece, I include myself in the judgment I think awaits a morally complicit church and country and include myself among the pro-life evangelicals I largely have in view with the op-ed. Characterizing the piece as “pro-abortion as long as we oppose Trump” is hardly an accurate representation.

So my point isn’t lost, here are a few more lines from my second paragraph:

many evangelical Christians explained that their vote was not a vote for Trump as such but was the best option they had in light of the potential for appointing pro-life Supreme Court justices in the hope of overturning Roe v. Wade. If one cares about protecting the lives of unborn children aborted by the hundreds of thousands each year, one can understand the logic. Clearly a President Hillary Clinton would have done nothing to curtail abortion and would very likely have done a great deal to expand policies protecting the practice.

Near the end of the op-ed, I add these lines:

In sheer numbers, more lives are ended by legalized abortion [in comparison to other injustices I list]. Christians are correct to focus energy and concern on ending the practice.

There’s zero sense in the piece that we should do anything but end abortion.

However, the piece does contend that there are other things to end as well. It seems to me the angst in Mr. Deace’s post is caused by those other things, not by my imagined opposition to abortion or a Supreme Court nominee that might bring us closer to ending it. In that way, his entire piece jousts a straw man. Burn the straw man if you like, but that will do nothing for helping the church get more vocal about a wider range of issues that the Bible calls us to address.

Idolatrous Men

Mr. Deace chose idolatry to frame his piece. It’s always correct for us to be wary of idolatry. Calvin told us, rightly, I think, that the human heart is an idol factory. I think Mr. Deace is correct and perceptive to say there’s idolatry on the “NeverTrump” and the “AlwaysTrump” side of the spectrum. Each side, in their own way, can have a fixation bordering on fanatical worship of something or someone that is not God.

I believe Pres. Trump to be ruinous for the country, but idolatrous opposition of Trump does not drive me. Opposing Trump does not get me up in the morning.

What does get me up in the morning is another day of fresh mercy with which I hope to serve God with all my heart, mind, and strength (Lam. 3:22-23; Matt. 22:37). What does awaken me is the unfathomable grace that allows me to call Jesus “Lord” and to endeavor to obey everything He has commanded (Matt. 28:18-20).

Truthfully, that’s where the biggest disagreement lies between Mr. Deace and me. Mr. Deace thinks that defeating Roe v. Wade and abortion is “the pre-eminent moral concern of the Word of God.” No. It’s not. I am not aware of any text anywhere in the Bible that specifies abortion as the “pre-eminent moral concern of the word of God.” If we’re talking God’s moral law, there still remain ten. At the top of the list is love for God above all else. Such love is not mere sentiment; such love is a moral responsibility for which we give an account.

Mr. Deace seems to apply the wisdom instruction to “rescue those being taken away to death and hold back those being led away to slaughter” (Prov. 24:11) solely to abortion. But that text is not a narrow reference to abortion. It certainly does apply to abortion. But as my op-ed argues, that same text and others like it apply to mass incarceration, sex trafficking, exploitation of minors in drug trafficking, and a host of other injustices the Bible calls God’s people to condemn.

If there is idolatry at work, it’s the idol some Christians have made of ending abortion and the tendency, as Mr. Deace demonstrates, of making abortion not the greatest moral concern of our day but the only moral concern of our day.

Mr. Deace and I appear to have widely divergent visions of the Christian life and of the God we worship.

Here’s the truth about God from the Bible as it relates to this topic: “The LORD works righteousness and justice for all who are oppressed” (Ps. 103:6). Or as the prophet Zephaniah put it: “The LORD within her is righteous; he does no injustice; every morning he shows forth his justice; each dawn he does not fail; but the unjust knows no shame” (Zeph. 3:5).

That’s the Lord I serve, and he does all things well. We need to join him in doing righteousness and justice in our day, and we need to attempt it on every front where he is working. That means applauding a righteous thing that a flawed President might do, but also opposing an unrighteous thing that same President might do elsewhere. Failing to do so is at best inconsistency and sometimes hypocrisy, but it’s never godly.

The God-Man

In the end, dear reader, you don’t really care what I think or what Mr. Deace thinks. At least you shouldn’t. What really matters is what Jesus thinks. He is Lord of all, and if we love him, then we will keep his commands (John 14:15, 23).

What does our Lord command of us?

He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God? (Micah 6:8)

And we would do well, brothers and sisters, to hear the Lord’s warning given to another group of religious people who seem to think they were always in good standing with God:

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. (Matt. 23:23)

Let us, by grace and with faith, be about the weightier matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness—for all who are oppressed.

]]>What Mr. Johnson Apparently Doesn’t Understandhttps://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/mr-johnson-apparently-doesnt-understand/
Fri, 29 Jun 2018 15:32:26 +0000http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/?post_type=thabiti-anyabwile&p=148646I do not know Phil Johnson the man. Apart from one conference and one panel discussion in the early years of Christian blogging, I have not shared any public or private space with him. I don’t know Phil Johnson the man, only Phil Johnson the blogger and tweeter. But, assuming the best of Phil Johnson the tweeter and blogger, I have arrived at a few assessments. He strikes me as a person who cares deeply about his family. I imagine he’s a good husband and a decent father, struggling like all mortals but doing a good job. I suppose he’s...]]>

I do not know Phil Johnson the man. Apart from one conference and one panel discussion in the early years of Christian blogging, I have not shared any public or private space with him. I don’t know Phil Johnson the man, only Phil Johnson the blogger and tweeter.

But, assuming the best of Phil Johnson the tweeter and blogger, I have arrived at a few assessments. He strikes me as a person who cares deeply about his family. I imagine he’s a good husband and a decent father, struggling like all mortals but doing a good job. I suppose he’s industrious at work. His behind-the-scenes ministry to John MacArthur has helped to make “John MacArthur” a household name in many Christian circles around the world. He is an elder at his church, so I infer that godly men and an entire congregation regard him as an example-setting, faithful servant of Christ and one who loves the sheep. It’s no stretch of the imagination for me to envision lots of people praising God for this man. And I assume they have a better perch than I do to make judgments about his character, confession, and calling.

I have zero interest in disparaging Mr. Johnson as a person—especially not based on the shards of information I have about him and his thinking from his online footprint. Despite the volume of blogging and tweeting he’s done over the years, I still don’t know the man. I don’t know what things he keeps to himself that make him who he is. I don’t know what tributaries to his personality carry clear water and which muddy. I don’t know the man, and I’m unwilling to judge him unrighteously, rashly, or in any other fleshy way.

Further, I pray the Lord shows Mr. Johnson and all his kith and kin the greatest blessings of grace, mercy, and love. I really do.

Though I don’t know Mr. Johnson personally, he does see fit to communicate with me on Twitter. Since he’s taken the time to address me directly in a couple of recent tweets, and since it’s generally my habit to respond when I can, I want to say a couple of things here.

First, for context, Mr. Johnson’s recent comments take issue with an op-ed I authored at The Washington Post (see here).

For a little added context, Mr. Johnson’s comments take issue with a Twitter exchange I had with someone who has always been both charitable and forthright with me:

Of course I disagree with @ThabitiAnyabwil here, too. No one but a racist schlub would blame all black evangelicals for the evils of Obama’s presidency. To single out & castigate an entire ethnic group for sins of which many of them are innocent is the quintessence of racism. pic.twitter.com/g4fliNUrMD

Furthermore, @ThabitiAnyabwil, I suspect you yourself don’t REALLY believe that (at least not with any kind of passion), judging from your silence on the issue during eight years of the Obama administration—and the lack of any such balance in the things you are writing now.

So, that’s the totality of what’s been said so far. What seems evident to me is that Mr. Johnson either willfully or mistakenly confuses issues in his responses to me. In either case, he demonstrates a growing list of things he apparently does not understand. Here are a few:

1. The “quintessence of racism” is not demonstrated by statements of statistical fact or consistent moral reasoning but by assigning superiority or inferiority status on an entire group of people. Apparently, Mr. Johnson does not understand that saying a group of Christians—black or white—are morally responsible for supporting immoral policies is not “racism” by any definition.

2. Further, apparently Mr. Johnson does not understand that neither “white evangelicals” or “black evangelicals” are a “race.” These are religious subgroups of larger ethnic groups or “races” if you prefer. A comment about a subgroup’s voting behavior or citizenship responsibility is therefore not “racism.” We’re not even talking about a “race” as such. Not all white people are Christians, and not all white people voted for Trump. The same is true of black people. Mr. Johnson apparently does not understand that he’s the one generalizing here and that generalization obscures communication, understanding, and progress.

3. Apparently Mr. Johnson does not understand James 3:5-12. In all our interactions, he’s the one tossing around slurs and labels rather than intelligently discussing or rebutting a point. In his tweets, a man who does not know me, but should know that whatever else I am I am someone made in God’s image, manages to insult me in two languages. As James puts it, these things ought not be so.

4. Apparently Mr. Johnson does not understand where we are in history. News flash: Barack Hussein Obama is no longer president of the United States. Hasn’t been for 18 months now. The policies with which we have to contend as citizens and Christians are not Mr. Obama’s, but President Trump’s. No amount of Obama-bashing, and no calls for “balance” in criticizing Obama is relevant to what is actually happening today. Mr. Johnson accuses me of being silent for eight years on President Obama. Here are a few receipts for the interested, I just chose a couple quick things from Obama’s candidacy in 2007 down to the Freddie Gray issues near the end of his second term in 2015:

Sen. Obama, Race, Faith and Elections

During the rash of police shooting videos, especially during the Freddie Gray debacle, here are a couple of tweets:

That’s a sampling gathered with just a quick search on this site and Twitter. Perhaps it’s the case Mr. Johnson just missed these comments and many, many others. Or, perhaps there’s a confirmation bias at work. It doesn’t fit his narrative of me, so these things get omitted. In either case, it seems clear to me that Mr. Johnson does not understand my political commentary over the years and especially during the period since I’ve moved back to the States. I am aimed at the current president, not the previous guy or the rivals he beat in the election. It’s the current president who wields the power of the highest office in the land and the current president we have a responsibility to address.

5. Apparently Mr. Johnson doesn’t understand or respect moral consistency. If I answer differently for whites and blacks then I’m sure to be called a “racist” and morally inconsistent. If I answer honestly and consistently, I’m still a “racist schlub,” and my passion openly questioned based on his perception of what I have or have not said online. All the while Mr. Johnson finds it easy to identify “racists” who are black-skinned but can’t seem to spot a white-skinned racist even when the conversation was about 1950-’60s America. It appears that Mr. Johnson’s true problem with moral consistency is not whether I am passionate or earnest in my comment. His true problem with moral consistency lies in his inability to examine his own tribe by the standard he holds for others.

6. I suspect what Mr. Johnson truly fails to realize is that the moral compromise of the evangelical church is deep and devastating. I suspect he fails to realize how his online behavior and “arguments” aid that compromise by giving it the patina of biblical orthodoxy garnered largely by his association with Dr. MacArthur. Mr. Johnson seems to not understand that pretending the compromise (say, with President Trump’s policies) isn’t there or that it lies in another direction (say, with “social justice warriors” focusing too much on racism) isn’t a solution to the problem. Nor are uncharitable tweets toward someone with whom you disagree. A solution requires we actually focus on the merits or weaknesses of an argument in order to advance understanding and action. A solution requires we address the problematic behaviors of specific people and groups, not act as if any reference to a group is “racist,” even if the same is said about other groups in other situations. Mr. Johnson’s reaction is an example of what I think the kids nowadays call “fragility,” not an example of what he likely believes to be defense of theological orthodoxy and truth.

In conclusion, Phil, I wish you the very best. I pray the Lord gives you grace to complete every labor prompted by faith, hope, and love. I am sorry you think your disagreement with me is occasion for personal name-calling and venom. I am sorry you think that’s even worthy of a Christian, much less a Christian leader. I do not feel the same for you, and I won’t return the same to you. But from this point on, I’ll leave you to sort with the Lord what things are so abundantly in your heart that they spill out in this kind of rhetoric and what things are in your eyes that they block your vision. Grace to you.

]]>Sin on CP Timehttps://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/sin-cp-time/
Wed, 23 May 2018 12:54:08 +0000http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/?post_type=thabiti-anyabwile&p=143073Don’t think that because sin sometimes shows up on CP time that it won’t show up at all. ]]>

“The sins of some people are conspicuous, going before them to judgment, but the sins of others appear later.” (1 Tim. 5:24)

The apostle Paul tucks those words into his letter to a young pastor named Timothy just after telling Timothy to be careful with making others leaders in the church. Long, hard experience speaks these words. You have to have lived a little while, paying attention over time, to know this truth. My mama used to say, “It’ll all come out in the wash.” I’ve heard other older saints say, “Your sin will find you out.” Paul, my mama, those old saints—they were all correct.

Ask Bill Cosby. The now-convicted comedian isn’t laughing and joking about sexual assault allegations brought against him by dozens of women. What was done in darkness sometimes decades ago has now come to the light.

Ask Larry Nasser. The serial pedophile and sexual predator isn’t hiding behind medical expertise and doctor-patient confidentiality. The heart-breaking, mile-long parade of courageous women have brought his years of sin into the light of day.

Other examples abound. Consider the pastors whose sins have crawled out of dark secrecy recently to speak against them on spotlit stages. Praise God most of these pastors have not been as heinous as Cosby or Nasser, but that doesn’t mean their failings aren’t serious.

This morning the trustees at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary issued a statement announcing that Paige Patterson will no longer be president of that institution. Though the statement doesn’t mention the swirling controversy over Patterson’s comments about a young girl’s body or unbiblical counsel to women in abusive situations, the decision is at least linked by timing. Patterson’s comments were flat-out wrong and a pretty serious misrepresentation of the Bible he defended. This marks the sad end to a long and at times valiant career in service to the church and the gospel.

I suspect the reaction to the news will be mixed. Some may be of the opinion that a good man was unjustly pressured out of service. Some will cheer the decision with a furrowed brow, wondering why Patterson’s comments regarding women was not stated as partial basis for the action. Others will see the move as essentially continuing the same culture of disregarding women that led to Patterson’s comments in the first place.

No matter our reaction to the trustees’ announcement, it seems wise to ask, “What might we learn as we think about these things in our culture and in the church?”

Luke 13 provides one-word guidance: repent. When we see tragedies and sin around us, it’s at least an invitation for us to do some appropriate self-examination. Regarding the exposure of sin and folly, nothing has happened to others that cannot happen to us.

No matter the examples we bring to mind, we can be sure that the God who is publicly just, holy, and righteous will deal publicly with sin. It may appear for a time that we’ve gotten away with things. We may learn to breathe easier and even come to forget details and incidents as we “safely” try to “put things behind us.” But our sin is a pretty good tracker. It observes the footprints we leave, and it follows. It will follow us all the way to judgment—whether the judgment rendered in the court of public opinion or the judgment rendered at the bar of Christ. The record of our sin will appear.

The public revelation of our sin causes not just scandal but profound shock to our system. It’s not easy to recover—if recover is even the right response. This means we’re better off dealing with our sins before they “appear later.” We all are. And perhaps we all have things to deal with.

It’s also better to deal with these things while we are young. Older people fall harder and get up slower. We can spend our youth attempting to avoid these things, hoping they won’t shipwreck a ministry or a career. We can then spend our ministry ignoring these things, justifying them by pointing to our apparent “success.” Then when we’ve passed through middle age into retirement, we can justify continuing silence by saying, “Why ruin a good reputation?” Consequently, the weight of long life, perhaps the added weight of some success, gain crushing force when our sins come to light later and our good reputations are harmed.

Of course, depending on what we’re hiding or ignoring, it’s not really a good reputation, is it? It’s a fabrication, an image, a curated personal persona. But it’s not a reputation, hard-earned and deserved. We may convince ourselves the illusion is true and treat the truth as illusion. Believing the lie we protect ourselves rather than the truth. We imprison ourselves since the truth makes us free.

Finishing well means, in part, finishing without scandal. Every pastor I know (myself included) wants to finish well. But I wonder if we haven’t sometimes defined “finishing without scandal” as covering the scandal so no one knows rather than actually addressing the scandal like a Christian because God already knows. The only One who can rightly cover our scandal is Christ, who covers it with his blood. But a blood-covered scandal ought to make us free to confess it and deal with it. If we continue to hide it, it’s evidence we haven’t yet understood how great a covering his blood is. Then our sin will find us out, and we’ll doubly mourn—for the sin itself and for the failure to claim the blood so much sooner.

Don’t think that because sin sometimes shows up on CP time that it won’t show up at all. Instead, let us “confess our sins to one another and pray for one another, that we may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working” (James 5:16).

]]>Reconciliation Looks Like . . .https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/reconciliation-looks-like/
Wed, 16 May 2018 09:45:41 +0000http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/?post_type=thabiti-anyabwile&p=142046There’s a lot of relational sweat equity in the practical experience of this thing we call “reconciliation.”]]>

What will it take for the church to be reconciled?

That question gets posed a lot. It’s a good question even though sometimes it’s offered in exasperation and as a reflexive defense against what some view as incessant and ambiguous demands.

But whether the question gets posed honestly or disingenuously, it needs answering. A number of book-length treatments of ethnic or “racial” reconciliation exist and repay careful reading. But for the sake of a communication culture that increasingly prefers snippets, sound bites, and short things, here’s a very rudimentary answer to a very important question.

I think the practical experience of reconciliation (as opposed to the spiritual achievement of reconciliation through faith in Christ) entails six experiences together in our local congregations and our personal friendships. They are:

Common truth telling. About history. About our forbears. About the effects of injustice and sin against others. About the asymmetrical participation of individuals and groups in that common history.About Jesus, the Bible, and sanctification. Truth—both capital “T” and little “t” truth—is absolutely foundational to any effort at putting back together any estranged or frayed relationship. Without truth we build on sand and delusion. Unless we inhabit the same true stories we will find it nearly impossible to emerge with a common sense of reconciliation.

Judicial forgiveness. The wonderful folks at CCEF in one of their booklets on forgiveness helpfully distinguish between judicial and relational forgiveness. Judicial forgiveness is the heart work we do to ready ourselves to forgive even when folks aren’t asking. It’s what the Lord has in mind when he says we are to forgive seventy times seven times. Judicial forgiveness is a posture, an attitude, a readiness to remove another’s guilt for wrongs done to you. Judicial forgiveness falls more heavily on the shoulders of the offended, the wronged. Thus it often feels like an unfair burden. But it’s actually the path to freedom and the best way to live since our Lord requires it of us. In American conversations about ethnic reconciliation it falls to Black folks especially.

Judicial contrition. Alongside judicial forgiveness there must also be a judicial contrition. That is, we must do the heart work to ready ourselves to confess sins and wrong even when folks won’t receive our confession. We must remember that a broken and contrite heart God will never despise (Ps. 51:17). In contrition, we seek to live at peace with all men as much as it depends upon us (Rom. 12:18). The “as much as” includes doing everything to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Eph. 4:3), where “everything” includes weeping with those who weep (Rom. 12:15), confessing our sins to one another (Jam. 5:16), performing deeds in keeping with repentance (Acts 26:20) and the like. In the matter of ethnic reconciliation in America, judicial contrition is the cross to be carried by White brothers and sisters. Judicial contrition readies our white brothers and sisters to admit or confess the sins of their forebears and where necessary confess and repent of any present iteration of those sins. Like judicial forgiveness, it often feels like an unfair burden, but it’s the path to freedom and restoration. Repentance always is.

Relational forgiveness. With parties committed to truth telling and readied to forgive and to confess, relationships can be restored and breaches in fellowship closed. Often we try to skip to this step without having done the prerequisite work of documenting the truth and readying the heart to confess and forgive. So when we attempt relational forgiveness it feels fragile, temporary and even fake. Often it’s a peace-faking rather than a peace-making exercise. But genuine relational forgiveness built on truth and readied hearts possesses durability, integrity and permanence. This is loving each other deeply from the heart (1 Tim. 1:5; 1 Pet. 1:22) and that imitation of God in Christ that we’re called to (Eph. 4:32-5:2). Relational forgiveness is what we most often think of when we think of reconciliation between parties. But there’s more to the reconciliation we hope to see in the church.

Solidarity. Once truth is admitted, hearts readied, and relationships are restored, then we must continue in all of that hard work of getting to know and understand one another. We must stand together in genuine Christian friendship. In a word, there must be solidarity. Solidarity is friendship’s “greater love” that “lays down its life for others” (John 15:13). Solidarity is the kind of friendship that comes from more fully knowing one another and taking up each other’s godly agenda (John 15:15). We sometimes envision reconciliation as merely “kiss and make up,” after which each party goes back to their corner. But in deep reconciliation there’s a newfound camaraderie that faces the world together. The reconciled in Christ stand together wherever possible and biblically wise for redress of sins past and present. The reconciled stand together to defend one another against recrimination and blame from the unforgiving or further injustice and attack from the unrepentant. We’re not deeply reconciled if we “make up” then abandon one another to the same assaults that broke our bonds in the first place.

Practical pursuit of righteousness and justice. The final point is implied in the above paragraph on solidarity. I simply wish to draw it out in clearer fashion. If we are practically reconciled, we have to put our shoulders to the plow to change the church and, by God’s blessing, some part of the world. Do we merely want a society where “those bad things don’t happen as much any more,” or do we want a society positively aimed at the full flourishing of all its citizens? Which kind of church do we want? Everyone will not agree on all the entailments of “the good life.” But discussion and disagreement about the good life is precisely the debate we should have and the work we should then pursue. We serve a God who calls us to “correct oppression; seek justice” (Isa. 1:17) and who requires us “to do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly” with him (Micah 6:8). We worship a Lord who demands we keep the lighter matters of the law while emphasizing the weightier matters of justice, mercy, and faithfulness (Matt. 23:23). If we fail to do our duty in these things, then even if we experience greater reconciliation in our era we will set up future generations for injustices that harm reconciliation in their era. The reconciled stand together for righteousness and justice. Yes, we become “social justice warriors,” because the Word of God bids us to love and do justice just as our Savior God loves and does justice every morning (Zeph. 3:5).

Not Magic

So, that’s a rough sketch of “what it would look like” for the church to experience deeper levels of reconciliation. All of this, of course, grows out of the prior reconciliation we have through the cross of Christ. These six things are the practical outworking of that spiritual in-working. We are not to think experiential reconciliation comes without the disciplines, duties and graces of truth, confession, forgiveness, solidarity and the pursuit of righteousness. We put skin in the game (pun intended) when we commit to these Christian responsibilities. We grow in sanctification.

Christianity, after all, is not magic. We don’t grow by chanting mantras. We grow by the grace of God as the Spirit of God uses the means of God to perfect the people of God. There’s a lot of relational sweat equity in the practical experience of this thing we call “reconciliation.”

]]>When Color Blind Is Truth Blindhttps://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/color-blind-truth-blind/
Tue, 15 May 2018 09:01:28 +0000http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/?post_type=thabiti-anyabwile&p=141860The only way to live responsibly in the world is to commit ourselves to the kind of peacemaking that begins with things as they really are. ]]>

Though often well-intended, a commitment to being “color blind” becomes harmful when it fails to recognize the good ways God has filled the world with color.

In other words, sometimes “color blindness” is a spiritually and psychologically unhealthy way to cope with the world as it is. “Color blind” ought not mean truth blind.

Of course, people cope in various ways. Some cope by running. That’s the flight response, and there are all kinds of ways to flee. Some cope by slugging. That’s the fight response. And like flight, there are many ways to fight in response to things.

But there exist coping strategies in between fight and flight, like peacemaking. Peacemaking involves two or more parties in conflict actually finding a way to resolve the conflict and return to peace. Peacemaking can include mediation, negotiation, arbitration, and restorative church discipline to name a few. Of course, the peacemakers are blessed people; they are genuine children of God (Matt. 5:9).

In the evangelical landscape, we find the entire range of coping strategies when it comes to matters of ethnic reconciliation. Some run away afraid of injury or just weary with experience. Some throw fists and elbows ready to fight for their view. A great many are in the middle trying to figure out a peacemaking approach.

What we cannot miss, however, is that there is something called peace-faking too. The good folks at Peacemaker Ministries first taught me this point. Peace-faking is an escape response. It’s running away while acting as if you’re not. It’s saying “Peace, peace” when there is no peace. Peace-faking smears the situation with whitewash (Ezek. 13:10). Peace faking sounds a lot like peacemaking and even tries to walk and talk like peacemaking. But not everything that quacks like a duck is a duck; sometimes it’s a hunter sitting in a blind taking aim at any duck lured by the sound!

Which brings me back to well-intentioned but disastrously ill-conceived notions of “color blindness.” Sometimes people assert they are “color blind” or that the Bible is “color blind” as a way of peace-faking and fleeing conflict. Worse still, sometimes people assert “color blind” approaches as a way of peace-breaking. They attempt to weaponize their coping approach in a way that delegitimizes other approaches or effectively demonize people who “see color.”

The “color blind” approach proceeds on a misdiagnosis of the problem. Seeing color in the physical sense of seeing is not the problem. Unless one is actually blind, we all see color. Admitting that people have skin pigments of varying hues and that sometimes those hues cluster into what the Bible calls families, clans, kinsmen, and nations is not the problem. Again, that’s self-evident. Anyone denying these things (and I’m not aware of any who does) is simply being delusional or dishonest.

The problem occurs at two points. First, people sometimes use “color blindness” to deny any and all meaning associated with skin color (here used as an imperfect proxy for ethnicity). If by “color blind” we mean that a person’s ethnicity has no meaning or legitimacy inside the church, in redemptive history, or in the practice of the church’s ordinances, then we have effectively defined away that person. Rather than associate positive value with ethnicity or skin color, and rather than grant the dignity of allowing that person to tell us what it means to them to be Black or White or Brown or Yellow, the “color blind” erases all of that and insists the person become something other than what God made them to be. After all, it is God who designed a universe with color and painted every aspect of the universe in vibrant hue, including humanity. It was God who separated the human family into tribes and clans and nations (Gen. 10). And it’s God who reconstitutes for himself a new people made of every tribe, clan, and language (Acts 2; Rev. 7). It must also be God who rightly defines what color means and doesn’t mean if we want a healthy identity. That he intends it so cannot and should not be subverted or denied. At the very least it should be affirmed that color communicates beauty and creativity. God doesn’t make mistakes; he’s never painted with an errant stroke. “Color blindness” does not really acknowledge the human world and its beauty the way God has actually made it.

There’s a second problem with the peace-faking approach of “color blindness.” Sometimes “color blindness” gets used to deny any responsibility for addressing problems that occur along the lines of skin color. “Color blind” becomes pretext for an ideological worldview that excuses the holder from taking biblical action to redress wrong. If you don’t see it, you don’t have to acknowledge it or do anything about it. This is why a bad form of “color blind” coping becomes a real disaster. It leaves real problems unaddressed when the Lord calls his people to do justice and live righteously.

It’s ironic. “Color blindness” ends up at the same dead end as overt racism. Overt racism makes too much of and associates the wrong meanings with skin color. Where “color blindness” is a flight response, overt racism is a fight response. But they both end up saying to people of color, “I don’t see you and I don’t value you.” They both fail to accept the Christian responsibility to love neighbor. They both perpetuate injustice either by actively committing it in the case of overt racism or by actively denying it in the case of “color blindness.”

The only way to live responsibly in the world is to commit ourselves to the kind of peacemaking that begins with things as they really are. We must learn to cope with the tools of the gospel and the Scripture, and that’s going to require a bunch of humility and faith.

]]>The Cost of Unityhttps://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/the-cost-of-unity/
Mon, 14 May 2018 12:57:58 +0000http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/?post_type=thabiti-anyabwile&p=141851Humility. That’s the cost of unity. Is it too high a cost? ]]>

These days there’s a lot of talk about “unity” in the church. On the one side, there are Christians who insist that any talk of “race” and racism threatens the unity of the church. On the other side, there are Christians who insist that avoiding conversation and action regarding “race” and racism is itself evidence of disunity. In the former case, there’s great emphasis on biblical texts that teach our essential equality before God through Christ. In the latter case, there’s great emphasis on biblical texts that require the practice of reconciliation between believers in Christ.

Who’s right?

Well, like so many things, the truth is in the middle, or at least combines both positions when they’re rightly understood.

In one sense, the Christian church is already unified through our spiritual union with Christ. By his death, Jesus Christ was “killing the hostility” (Eph. 2:16) that existed between God and humanity since the fall of Adam and Eve into sin (Rom. 8:7). Through his crucifixion and resurrection, the Lord Jesus makes all Christians “one new man” (Eph. 2:15). You might think of the Christian family as one new ethnicity made up of people from all natural ethnicities who have been “reconciled to God through one body in the cross” (Eph. 2:16). In this reconciliation is union with Christ and union with one another (Rom. 6:3-4, 11; 12:5; 1 Cor. 12:27; etc) and a new identity that eclipses and relativizes the old (1 Cor. 9:19-23). In that spiritual union, regarding our equality before God and with one another, “there is neither Jew nor Greek” (Gal. 3:28; Col. 3:11). Jesus accomplishes our unity in his redemptive work on the cross.

In another sense, our experience of unity is not yet perfected. We see that our unity, like all of our redemption, belongs to an already-not yet tension. We are already unified in Christ through faith in him, but we have yet to experience the fullness of that unity inside the Church militant. So the Christian church must “do everything to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3). We must help feuding sisters agree (Phil. 4:2-3). We must remind one another that our favorite teachers did not die for us and we were not baptized into them, but must “have the same mind and judgement” (1 Cor. 1:10-12). We must address the complaints of widows from differing linguistic backgrounds (Acts 6). We must, like the church of the apostolic era, wrestle with how and on what basis and to what extent unity between Jew and Gentile (or Gentile and Gentile for that matter) can be practically realized in the one body of Christ our Lord (Acts 15). Christ has begun the work, and in the end Christ will complete the work. But here in the in-between-time the Lord has left us the ministry of reconciliation—a ministry that involves proclaiming the gospel to sinners (2 Cor. 5:16-21) but also practicing reconciliation among saints as an act of worship (Matt. 5:23-24). By all these inclusive practices of love, we are meant to tie ourselves together into an unbreakable knot with Christ as the main cord.

But carrying on the conversation as if only one side is true is a fool’s errand. Trying to “rig” the conversation so that the force of the “other side’s” argument gets blunted is disingenuous. Let God be true and every man a liar. Let the whole counsel of God give us balance and integrity in an already-not-yet tension that gives us a foretaste of glory while calling us to the sweat of sanctification.

If there is to be a fuller experience of unity the cost will include humbling ourselves beneath God’s entire Word, humbling ourselves to fellowship with brethren on all “sides” of the issue, humbling ourselves to accept history and social science that both affirms and condemns everyone involved in different ways, humbling ourselves to tell the truth without varnish, humbling ourselves long enough to listen and consider before responding, humbling ourselves to say “I was wrong” or “you were right” or “please forgive me” or “I didn’t know that,” and humbling ourselves to forgive. Let’s insert the entire book of James here, because without humility there will be too much pride for true practical unity.

Humility. That’s the cost of unity. Is it too high a cost? Time will tell.

]]>An Apology to Beth Moore and My Sistershttps://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/apology-beth-moore-sisters/
Thu, 03 May 2018 15:28:52 +0000http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/?post_type=thabiti-anyabwile&p=140284An open letter of apology to Beth Moore and my sisters in Christ.]]>

Today Beth Moore penned a poignant letter to her brothers in Christ in which she points out the sinful root at the bottom of a lot of male attitudes toward women in general and women in ministry specifically. It deserves a wide and genuinely prayerful reading.

I read it with a broken heart. Not merely because I was moved by what she described of her treatment and because I recognize some of what she described among some Christian brothers and leaders. I am broken-hearted because I recognize something of the attitude in me, and I recognize that I have had that attitude in years past toward Beth, though I didn’t know her and hadn’t spent any time reading her materials.

Dear Beth, if you read this, I need to confess and ask your forgiveness.

I first became aware of your ministry when I was a young Christian in the late-1990s. Christian women around me were often expressing how blessed they were by your ministry, how much they learned from you, and how they felt seen as a consequence of your ministry. I was happy for them but not at all aware of how much they were really telling me about what it meant to be a Christian woman—how invisible and underfed that experience could be.

Some years later, I thought I had learned a few things. By then, I had become a “complementarian,” though my understanding of that view wasn’t deep. I had picked up the attitude—the patronizing and chauvinistic attitude—of some professing “complementarians.” My heart met nearly every mention of a woman in ministry with a scoff and the suspicion that that woman did not understand or accept the Bible’s teaching on gender roles.

That scoffing attitude and that instinctive suspicion grew stronger in me. Here’s where I need to ask your forgiveness most. Not knowing you personally and having not read or watched you teach, I passed along that suspicion and doubt to others in my pastoral care. I didn’t say much about you with words. I can’t recall saying anything about you as a person. But with a raised eye brow, a shrugged shoulder, a “hmmm” before a redirecting sentence, I passed along what was in my heart, the sinful attitude rooted in the very misogyny and chauvinism you describe in your post. If we communicate most in non-verbal ways, then I’m afraid I’ve “said” a lot about you, and I have slandered you.

And I have let others slander you. I’ve been in rooms where your name was mentioned with disparaging tone. And rather than ask a few basic questions (how do you know this about her, do you have any evidence you can point us to, and so on), I said and did nothing. I wasn’t any different from Saul standing by holding clothes while Stephen was stoned.

I know your open letter isn’t about you alone. It’s about you along with the scores of women who have suffered the same with less notoriety and resources than you have. And while I know your post doesn’t pretend to describe the universal experience of women, I also know that my attitudes and actions (or lack thereof) have affected more women than I know.

Over the last 18 months, my heart has grown even sicker with grief as I’ve watched you valiantly stand with African Americans in our complaints and concern about treatment in the world and sometimes in the church. I’ve been astounded at how the Lord has used you and how much you have courageously risked to stand with us and to join the conversation. You did it all with no promise of an “up side” or reward but because convinced by Scripture you thought it was right. As we’ve interacted online, you’ve been used of the Lord to heal a good number of things in my heart that you’re not even aware of. I’m still set free by an interaction between you and Ray Ortlund, an interaction that’s allowed me to return to blogging and lean into some things I was pretty hopeless about. For that, you’ve earned my deepest respect and admiration and profound gratitude. You have been far kinder to me than I deserve. Your kindness has heaped coals on this poor sinner’s head.

So, I want very much to ask your forgiveness.

I want to admit my sin publicly, because my sins have affected a wider public than I know. I don’t want to pass under the radar hoping others might afford me the benefit of the doubt or because they might appreciate something else about me might put me in the category of men you so graciously say you’re not addressing.

I want to accept responsibility for my action and inaction without qualification. There are no “if,” “and,” or “but” statements to justify or excuse my wrong. I only wish I could describe my wrongs more fully and forcefully, because it is displeasing before the Lord. I do not wish to be the Pharisee thanking God that I am not like some brothers I imagine to be worse than I am. There’s no relativizing my sin; I accept responsibility for my wrong here.

I want to acknowledge the hurt I’ve caused. I cannot imagine what it’s like to share an elevator or a car with men who would not even acknowledge you. I didn’t do that to you, but I’ve certainly contributed to that kind of treatment by failing to advocate for my sisters and to challenge such things among men. I am grieved that I have damaged your reputation among others.

If this means we cannot have a relationship, I accept the consequences. I will have been the one who broke trust and failed to love and protect my sisters and you specifically.

I do now commit to being a more outspoken champion for my sisters and for you personally. Not that you need me to be but because it is right. I hope, with God’s help, to grow in sanctification, especially with regards to any sexism, misogyny, chauvinism, and the like that has used biblical teaching as a cover for its growth.

Dear Beth, and all my sisters, I hope you will forgive me.

]]>Whose Evangelicalism?https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/whose-evangelicalism/
Mon, 30 Apr 2018 13:15:38 +0000http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/?post_type=thabiti-anyabwile&p=139666If we want a greater experience of Christian unity in local churches we must become aware of when “our” centers one group and when “our” tacitly or explicitly imposes extra-biblical cultural requirements on others. ]]>

Much has been written about the “quiet exodus” of African-American Christians from predominantly white evangelical churches. Often those observations seem to suggest two things:

That those African-Americans are no longer evangelicals and may be in danger of leaving the faith altogether; and,

That evangelicalism as a movement belongs to white evangelical Christians.

The first assumption need not be feared merely because folks are leaving predominantly white churches. “Evangelicalism,” despite the assumption of some, is not a synonym for true Christianity. The Lord has a people—a vast innumerable people—who are not and who do not belong to white evangelical churches. Praise his holy name!

The second assumption bears some reflection. If we think well about who “owns” evangelicalism, we may find a way to caulk the cracks in our fellowships and keep people from slipping through.

If “evangelicalism” gets defined sociologically, even implicitly or tacitly, we would think “evangelical” equals “white.” We might even hear “white evangelicals” as redundant. We get a hint about whether we’re thinking sociologically by asking ourselves who we mean when we say “our church.” If we say something along the lines of, “We would like more diversity at our church” and the antecedent to “our” is our ethnic group, then we may be thinking of our ethnic selves as the owners of the local church. It may not be a self-conscious thing. We may not ever want people to feel excluded because of our ethnic identity. In fact, we are expressing the opposite desire. But the unexamined assumption that this is “our” church—by which we center our culture, our habits, our preferences, and so on—can be felt by every person not a part of our group. In this way, a sociologically defined evangelicalism, with its centering of one group’s identity, perhaps hidden from conscious intention, tends toward the division of the church along ethnic, cultural, ritual, and preferential lines.

If we defined “evangelicalism” politically we might think it belongs to politically conservative and Republican types. This is certainly a media understanding, but is also the self-understanding of many evangelicals. Nowadays, some people are tempted to think Trump voters “own” evangelicalism. But an essentially political definition may be there even if a person rejects Trump. Many consider conservative politics an expression of a “biblical worldview.” So conservative political philosophy (which is in actuality, like all secular political philosophies, a form of worldliness) becomes in their view normative for all Christians. Those who aren’t conservative are then not “good Christians” or deemed “immature.” To be fair, this happens with any political philosophy that becomes rather synonymous with the term “evangelical.” It just happens that “evangelical” is most often associated with varieties of political conservatism. When that happens we create a political litmus test by which potential members are vetted. The church belongs to a political group in that case.

If defined theologically, evangelicalism belongs to all who hold genuine evangelical theological commitments. What are those? For shorthand, I would commend Bebbington’s quadrilateral. In light of recent squabbles, specifically note Bebbington’s fourth category in the quadrilateral: activism. Historic evangelicals were activists in all kinds of good causes. Sadly, nowadays it’s common to hear some professing “evangelicals” calling such activism the “social gospel,” “Marxism,” and the like. Effectively, then, some evangelicals hold a trilateral understanding of the movement. In cutting off activism they become “evangelical gnostics,” retreat to an isolationist fundamentalism, fear any venture into public witness leads only to liberalism, or simply hold a view inconsistent with evangelical heritage. But whether quad- or trilateral, these self-conscious evangelicals tend to distinguish themselves from the first two groups and claim to be the true “owners” of the movement.

As you might have guessed already, these categories are not mutually exclusive. If we put these things together we get a pretty powerful cocktail for exclusion calling itself “evangelical” when it’s really a narrow sociological, political,partly ahistorical, and socially withdrawn expression of faith. That such a view exists is demonstrable and plain all over the place. It’s been most startlingly and uncomfortably revealed in social and political events across the country these last four to five years.

What might be surprising to some inside this kind of evangelical subculture is that people who do not fit in the subculture can feel excluded in these environments. And sometimes this evangelical subculture makes the subjective feeling quite explicit and objective with boundary-maintaining shibboleths. Elements of the subculture become the price of admission and “discipleship” becomes a form of assimilation. Ironically, a people meant to be gatherers fulfilling the Great Commission become scatterers instead (Matt. 12:30).

If we want a greater experience of Christian unity in local churches we must become aware of when “our” centers one group and when “our” tacitly or explicitly imposes extra-biblical cultural requirements on others. We must be alert to our extra-biblical shibboleths, and we must tear them apart so others may easily move in. Whoever occupies the “our” in the local evangelical church must radically embrace and include the people on the margins if they want to diversify the center.

Which brings me back to the issue of the quiet exodus. Should people leave? Or, should others be forced to change?

If “evangelical” is meant to be a nickname for something like “biblical Christian community,” then evangelicalism belongs to all Christians who hold the quadrilateral (or some other suitable definition for the movement). Evangelicalism is mine as much as it’s anyone else’s. If I feel alien and unwelcome, I should not acquiesce to those feelings and should not concede evangelicalism to people who have no greater claim to the movement than I do. But I should also avoid the impulse to find a church “for us” that returns the exclusionary favor. Unity is worth fighting for even if we fight against ourselves and our tendency to want to be comfortably at the center.

True Evangelicalism belongs to Jesus. I belong to Jesus. You belong to Jesus. The church belongs to Jesus. So we must “do” evangelicalism the way Jesus would have us do it. We get our cue from the first “T4G” where the apostles in Jerusalem faced the question of whether and how Gentile believers were to be included in the church. They wrote a letter to churches with Gentiles documenting their decision. We read it in Acts 15:22-29.

22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers, 23 with the following letter: “The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. 24 Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, 25 it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”

The majority who could have centered the church on their Jewishness, instead used their position of privilege to include the Gentiles on the margins “to lay no other burden” on them other than avoiding idolatry and sexual immorality. In this way they simultaneously made Jesus the main thing, affirmed biblical morality and worship, and welcomed the “other” just as they were as Gentiles. May the same Holy Spirit who moved the apostles and elders to do this 2,000 years ago move their supposed evangelical heirs to do the same today.

]]>Only Preach the Gospel?https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/only-preach-the-gospel/
Fri, 27 Apr 2018 12:55:56 +0000http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/?post_type=thabiti-anyabwile&p=139402Many may be living well beneath their calling as Christians because they’ve been taught the faith is only preach the gospel when it’s not.]]>

Did Jesus ever say, “Only preach the gospel?” Is that his directive for pastoral ministry?

Perhaps the ready mind jumps to Paul’s words of introduction to his short summary of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:3, “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received. . . .” Many people read “of first importance” and seem to conclude “of only importance.”

Or maybe another Pauline passage springs to mind: “For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2). There Paul contrasts his plain preaching of the gospel against the “lofty speech” or sophistry he steadfastly avoided. Some who read “I decided to know nothing . . . except Jesus Christ and him crucified” go on to conclude that we should only preach the gospel.

Without question the gospel is of first importance. Nothing should come before it. Without question the preacher should make the gospel plain. I would go so far as to say every sermon preached should include a proclamation of the gospel and a call to repent and believe in Christ.

However, if we take this to mean that only the gospel should be preached, or if we selectively shy away from other subjects the Bible addresses, we do something neither Jesus nor Paul ever does. We contract the scope of God’s concerns to the nucleus while ignoring the rest of the nucleus-informed cell. We reduce our vision to sun’s central place in the solar system but neglect its effect on the remaining planets and stars that orbit it. Isolate the sun in this way and you soon fail to see how the sun’s gravitational pull holds the rest of the solar system together, how it affects the temperatures of planets, how it gives light to other bodies, and how all of that creates life.

We should understand the gospel in that way. It’s the nucleus that provides mass and weight to the cell of the church. It’s the sun around which everything orbits, is held together, and derives its light and life.

But the gospel is not the only thing in the Christian solar system. There’s marriage and parenting and public worship and responsibility to government and leadership and ethics and . . . you get the point.

So the preacher’s job is to “declare the whole counsel of God,” as Paul said of his ministry to the Ephesians. This is the same Paul who decided to know nothing among the Corinthians except Jesus Christ and him crucified. That declaration of the whole counsel was how the apostle could consider himself innocent of the blood of all his hearers (Acts 20:26-27). He told them everything God required, so he was innocent regarding the course of their subsequent lives.

Or, take the Lord Jesus Christ. His concluding charge to the nascent church is “go into the world and make disciples . . . teaching them to obey everything I have commanded” (Matt. 28:19). He does not say, “Go into the world and only preach the gospel.” No one can be a disciple unless they hear, believe, and obey the gospel (Rom. 10). In that way, too, gospel preaching is of first importance. But no one can keep the Great Commission unless they also go on to obey everything Jesus commands. What would that be? For starters, that would include the new commandment to love one another (John 13:34-35). But it would also include “the weightier matters of the law: mercy and justice and steadfastness” (Matt. 23:23).

A “gospel-centered” evangelicalism that becomes a “gospel-only” evangelicalism ceases to be properly evangelical. “Gospel-only” Christianity stands staring into the sun until it’s blinded to the solar system. It carves away the rest of the cell with its membrane, ribosomes, vesicles, and organelles. For such a “gospel-centered” evangelical, the cell loses its function. The solar system ceases to operate as a system. In the end, we fail to keep the Great Commission, because we failed to declare the whole counsel of God and to teach disciples to obey everything the Lord demands.

“Gospel-only” Christianity even creates a hearing impairment. When well-intentioned Christians discipled to be “gospel-only” hear parts of the Bible outside their “only” grid, they actually respond as if it’s something foreign to the Bible and faith. Obedience becomes legalism. Ethics become liberalism. Suspicion poisons belief in and practice of the whole counsel of God.

“Gospel-centered” and “gospel-only” are not the same thing. The former gives life to our spiritual universe. The latter blinds itself to the world and the gospel’s effect on it. When that happens, little wonder that the only real “heroes” of the Christian are preachers, and the greatest focus ultimately becomes “preach the gospel to yourself.” However wonderful a blessing a preacher is (Eph. 4:11ff) and however necessary it is to remind ourselves of the gospel, the Bible clearly teaches there’s more to the Christian life. Many may be living well beneath their calling as Christians because they’ve been taught the faith is only to preach the gospel when it’s not. Spend a little prayerful time in a pastoral epistle like Titus and you’ll see that God has more for us to do in addition to preaching the gospel.

]]>Hijacking Repentancehttps://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/hijacking-repentance/
Wed, 25 Apr 2018 15:25:59 +0000http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/?post_type=thabiti-anyabwile&p=125318There are many ways repentance can be hijacked. But before we recognize those ways we first have to be clear on what repentance truly involves.]]>

Last week I had the honor of appearing for the first time on Cross Politics. I had a good time with the brothers and appreciate them allowing me to give long-winded answers that filibustered the show! Along the way, one of them chided me about listening to the show, so I promised I would. And I did.

The first show in the queue was their MLK50 episode. Since we had discussed related things on the show, I thought I’d give it a listen. Good a place as any to start.

I found the conversation engaging. There was a lot to digest. What caught my attention and continued to stick with me was a phrase I think “Chocolate Knox” used a couple of times: “hijacking repentance.” I like the phrase, though I’m not sure who he was referring to specifically or what he meant. Like all preachers who steal other people’s phrases, I’m about to now hijack the phrase “hijacking repentance.” I’d like to list a few ways the biblical idea of repentance can indeed be stolen.

Unhitch Method

One way to hijack something would be to unhitch the word from the meaning the way a hijacker might disconnect the cab of an 18-wheeler from the cargo carrying trailer behind. In this approach, “repentance” gets disconnected from the fruit of repentance. Think Matthew 3:8 and Acts 26:20. Genuine repentance produces fruit, new behaviors that match the turning toward God that is true repentance.

Without such works of repentance we have reason to doubt that someone has changed their minds and direction toward a new way. The deeds are unhitched from the claim.

Diversion Method

Diverting a driver from their path is another way something may be hijacked. The unsuspecting driver motors along their chosen route when a band of robbers force them from the road, perhaps to a side street, and into a waiting ambush where the entire vehicle may be stolen.

It happens with repentance too. People show up to bewitch the “repenter” and lead them into sin’s trap. Think Galatians 3:1; 5:7-9 and the arrogant acceptance of immorality in 1 Corinthians 5:1-2. The man in Corinth likely claimed to be repentant; he was certainly part of the church there. The Galatians were seduced from the gospel itself–not only was repentance hijacked but the entire faith.

Heist Method

By now you can tell I watch too many Fast & Furious movies and enjoy a good whodunit too much. With a heist you simply empty the vault or the container of its valuables while leaving the vault or container intact. You dangle from suspension wires, avoiding motion sensors to gently remove the crown jewel from its perch in the museum. Then you quietly retrace your stealthy steps to flee the property.

Think the false brethren in Jude’s day who “crept in unnoticed” to turn grace of our Lord into license or sensuality (Jude 4). They stole grace and along with it repentance right from the church’s pedestal while no one noticed.

Switch Method

With this method a would-be hijacker not only performs a heist but also leaves behind a worthless replica in place of the original. The goal is to make it look like the real jewel continues to be in place and there’s no reason for alarm.

Sometimes repentance gets switched with a counterfeit. Think 2 Corinthians 7:10 where godly sorrow that leads to repentance gets replaced with worldly sorrow that produces death. Of course 2 Corinthians teaches us that genuine repentance has its roots not merely in behavior or intellectual change, but in the affections or emotions. Repentance arises from seeing God in his holiness, seeing our sin as a personal affront to him, and really grieving the grievousness of sin such that we change in the power of the Holy Spirit. “Repentance” gets hijacked when people produce sugary substitutes and we settle for it.

Extortion Method

Okay, last one. Perhaps this is what “Chocolate Knox” had in mind. I’m not sure. But extortioners steal one thing by holding you hostage to another. They perhaps bilk small business owners for “protection money” by holding a serious threat over the business owners’ heads. It’s coercion not repentance. It’s lording it over the faith of others (Matt. 20:25) rather than demonstrating that kindness that’s meant to lead to repentance.

The apostles did not practice such tactics but worked together with the saints for their joy. Think 2 Corinthians 1:24. Or think 1 Thessalonians 2:6-7 where the apostles refused to make demands of the churches but were gentle like parents.

These are all ways I suppose someone could “hijack repentance.” Of course, “Chocolate Knox” asserted that a hijacking of repentance occurred at the MLK50 Conference by conference speakers. In context, I think he was referring to the notion that anything might be required of white brethren in Christ before reconciliation could occur with black brethren in Christ. He seemed to suggest that the addition of those requirements nullified the reconciliation we have in Christ and the repentance that brought us to faith in Christ. I hope I have not misunderstood him. If so, I’m sure he’ll correct me.

But if I have understood his response, then I would offer a couple of quick thoughts. There are many ways repentance can be hijacked. But before we can recognize those methods we first have to be clear on repentance itself.

First, as can be seen by many texts of Scripture, repentance toward God requires subsequent repentance toward any we have wronged. We don’t get to say, “I’m repentant and have placed my faith in Christ” and thereby absolve ourselves of any responsibility for any needed repentance in relationships with neighbor. Zacchaeus demonstrates that point marvelously. He proves his repentance toward God by returning fourfold anything he’s taken unrighteously from others (Luke 19:8). He was, of course, repenting in precisely the way the law required in such cases. These were his “deeds in keeping with repentance.” So “hijacking repentance” would mean defining repentance in such that repentance leaves off restitution for wrongs. I can’t speak for the MLK50 speakers (I’ve only heard two talks), but if they called for restitution for wrongs then they were not the hijackers. Those who unhitched such deeds from claims of repentance are the hijackers.

Second, some people seem to be making a category mistake in the discussion of repentance. Some (I don’t lay this accusation at “Chocolate Knox’s” feet) seem to be suggesting that the position of reconciliation we have in Christ somehow dissolves the practice of reconciliation in Christ. The claim seems to run along these lines: “Since we have been reconciled in Christ (Eph. 2, for example) then there are no longer any problems requiring reconciliation and not even any distinctions between people groups in the body of Christ. So, calls for repentance of racism and the like essentially rebuild the dividing wall of hostility.”

That’s a pretty significant category mistake. It is true that we are positionally reconciled in Christ, joined together in a spiritual union in him. It is true that the law and commandments that formed a dividing wall and produced hostility in sinful men have been torn down. Praise God. But those spiritual and positional truths have to be worked out in relational and practical ways. That’s why the apostles held the Jerusalem Counsel in Acts 15, why Paul rebuked Peter to his face for the ethnic favoritism that had him out of step with the gospel in Galatians, and why we get so much instruction about reconciling and reconciliation itself in the pages of the New Testament. The practice must follow the position, otherwise we’re not living out what has been achieved for us in Christ. Insisting on the practice (in this case repentance and relational reconciliation where necessary) is not hijacking repentance but proving it. Those who conflate positional and practical categories attempt a heist or a switch we should avoid.

Finally, it’s important to note that the citation of both tragedy and kindness are meant to lead us to repentance.The Lord Jesus called his disciples to repent at the tragic news of a collapsing tower and a madman murdering worshipers (Luke 13). Though they had nothing to do with those events, the lesson was made painfully clear: Unless you repent, the same could befall you. The apostle Paul tells us that the goodness of the Lord is meant to lead to repentance (Rom. 2:4). There’s a sense in which all our observations between the tragic and the beautifully good are designed by God to turn us back to him.

Some think that pointing to the sins of other generations and calling this generation to suspect problems of their own amounts to hijacking repentance. But it’s not. Naming sins and calling onlookers to tragedy to repent is entirely consistent with biblical strategy. In the face of tragedy or goodness, we’re not supposed to “keep calm and carry on,” getting to the next thing on the agenda. The announcement of the tragedy should excite us to turn to God. So should reminders of this country’s sinful past. That’s not hijacking repentance.

Anyway, thanks again “Chocolate Knox” for the phrase. Now that I have cited you, the next time I use it I will preface it with “As I always say . . .”!

]]>What Can I Do? / What Do You Want?https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/what-can-i-do-what-do-you-want/
Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:32:00 +0000http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/?post_type=thabiti-anyabwile&p=125371Discussions about “race” and racism eventually end with application questions. Most everyone asks some form of “So what now?”]]>

Discussions about “race” and racism eventually end with application questions. The debates fizzle. The heat cools. The air clears, and most everyone asks some form of “So what now?”

In my experience, the application question often takes two forms. Some people ask, “So what can I do?” Others ask, “So what do you want?”

There’s a world of difference between those two questions. The word choice often reveals a heart choice.

“What can I do?” often signals a heart that’s moved of its own accord toward engagement, commitment, and action, however feeble and novice. The question assumes personal responsibility and investment. It’s not about you but me. The person who asks this question often feels ownership of the issue and its resolution.

The second question, “What do you want?” often reveals a heart choosing to dig in. It shifts responsibility (or blame) from the questioner to the other. It’s not about me but you. It’s still playing defense. The question doesn’t come from willingness as much as a kind of defiant resignation or exasperation or grudging tacit admission of defeat. It often hopes there’s no answer to the question and finds relief in silence and glee in seemingly insignificant or impractical responses.

For those who ask, “What do you want?” I would simply say: It’s not what I want but what Jesus wants. Until you’re asking yourself what your Lord wants from you, you’re asking the wrong question and no answer will suffice. The good news is that the Lord tells us all exactly what he wants from us. We see it in the Great Commission, with its emphasis on making disciples who “observe everything he has commanded.” By “everything he has commanded,” Jesus means everything. For example, the Lord means the “new commandment” he preached in John 13, that we love one another as he has loved us (John 13:34). And I think the Lord has in mind a right application of old commandments too. Like the “weightier matters of the law: mercy and justice and faithfulness” (Matt. 23:23). The Lord means for true followers to be as scrupulous about these weightier matters as they are about the comparatively lighter issue of tithing and giving. All I want from brethren in the Lord is what Jesus demands of them. As long as you think those demands come from me and not from Jesus, your heart will remain resistant to the truth and the calling the Lord has on your life. It saddens me for you, because there’s more to Jesus than you know, and he has more for you to do as you follow him than you’re recognizing.

For those who ask, “What can I do?” I would say, “It depends.” It depends on who you are, where you are, and what providentially the Lord has given you to work with. Let me flesh that out with a series of application questions I shared with my church family a couple of weeks ago. I hope they help. The questions provide general guidance on finding your particular lane and running in it with freedom and confidence.

Identify your attitude. What attitudes and feelings are at work in my heart when it comes to pursuing biblical justice? How are those attitudes affecting my perception of people, situations, and most importantly God?

Identify your topics and learn. What are the issues that affect my family, my neighbor, my neighborhood, my church, my country, and my world? Which things hit close to home and therefore are close to me and those I love and serve? Which things are so important in the world at large that as a “world Christian” I should study?

Identify your “local lanes.” Of the things that hit close to home (my family, my neighbor, my neighborhood, my church), which ones will I get involved in? What are the opportunities for involvement and service?

Identify your responsibilities, authorities, and influence. How has God uniquely situated me to play a part in addressing this issue(s)? In my callings as Christian, spouse, parent, neighbor, vocation, what obligations, decision-making ability, and influence fall upon me, and how should I steward them?

Identify your strategies. What will I actually do given my topic, my local lanes, and my callings? Not everyone is called to do everything. If you don’t head a national organization with access to major media, you’re not likely the one who needs to be the national spokesperson. If you’re not a legislator you’re not likely the one to introduce a major bill. But you might be a father with a child on the autism spectrum and fighting to be sure she and other students have resources in their local school is right in your lane. Or you may be a freelance writer and lending your services to a worthy local cause is a perfect fit for who you are. What will be your strategy given who you are?

Identify your allies. The pursuit of biblical justice has always been a team sport. It’s always been a project God’s people are to join together to work on. But it need not be limited only to your tribe of Christianity or even necessarily to Christians. Who are the people and organizations of good will who image forth God’s likeness in the pursuit of justice in a way that isn’t repugnant to the Scriptures and the Lord? Which of them might join you or might you join in the pursuit of righteousness?

I know this isn’t a laundry list of “easy steps” to begin a life of doing the weightier matters of the law: mercy and justice and faithfulness. But hopefully it’s a little bit of principled help to those who are asking, “What can I do?” And hopefully a few others might consider what they’re saying when they ask, “What do you want?” Hopefully.

]]>That Would Put Us at 1888https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/put-us-1888/
Mon, 23 Apr 2018 13:19:36 +0000http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/?post_type=thabiti-anyabwile&p=125104It is not pointing out injustice that creates injustice. The long track record of history demonstrates that by pointing out those things we give ourselves opportunity for real justice.]]>

Since 2014, I think I’ve been told on three separate occasions that a blog post I’ve written has “set racial reconciliation back 50 years.” I think that would put us circa 1888 by now.

What was the state of racial reconciliation in 1888? If you google “United States in 1888” and check out many of the pages chronicling events that year, you won’t find much (if anything) mentioned about African Americans. Grover Cleveland was president. The “Schoolhouse Blizzard” killed 235 in the Dakota territories. Another blizzard hit the East Coast. National Geographic was founded. John Reed of Scotland brought golf to Yonkers, New York. The Washington Monument officially opened to the public.

You can find a lot of facts and trivia for 1888 and the Gilded Age of which it’s a part. But you won’t find a lot of descriptions about the state of things between African Americans and White Americans. Not with a general search like that—which looks a lot like the general history taught in our schools. If you believe that Google search and most text books, African Americans were hardly visible, hardly real, and hardly worth thinking about.

But for African Americans, that’s hardly the case.

Type in “African Americans in 1888” and you get more American history than is typically told. In that same Gilded Age (1870-1900), a period named for its rapid economic growth and industrial expansion, African Americans were having all their hard-earned rights following emancipation and Reconstruction systematically dismantled by counter-Reconstruction. African Americans were stripped of voting rights, political power, and economic opportunity. The U.S. Supreme Court voided the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, opening the gates for a later rise in white supremacy and the terrorizing of African Americans by hate groups. The U.S. Supreme Court also invalidated the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which forbid individuals and businesses from discriminating on the basis of race. Major League Baseball prohibited African American players from joining the league in 1887. By 1888-89, states passed segregation and Jim Crow laws on trains and public transit. It would take African Americans nearly 100 years to regain rights that were once protected in 1875.

At least two things should be obvious by this simple recounting of differing realities in America 150 years ago:

Folks who think a blog post sets back racial reconciliation 50 years are not sufficiently acquainted with history and reconciliation to be taken seriously. The real threats happen in legislatures, where signed bills do far more than blog posts.

Folks who think a blog post set back racial reconciliation 50 years are not really clear on how our current level of reconciliation has been achieved.

On that second point, just think of the contrast between what was happening in America at large (read, white America) with its rapid economic expansion and what was happening in African America with the roll back of nearly every freedom and right gained after the Civil War. Mark Twain’s use of “Gilded Age” could not be more fitting, because the country was thinly gilded with the gold of material prosperity covering the puss of racial apartheid.

We must understand that every single gain in equal rights, civil rights, and basic freedom and dignity has come through the courage, conviction, risk, and sacrifice of African Americans and their few allies pointing out and protesting injustices. Not one single right has ever been given to African Americans out of the kindness of people’s hearts. Not one. Every right we have has come after long years of protest and pressure and appeal to conscience.

So, when my interlocutors argue that by pointing out problems in society and the church I am setting things back, they prove themselves not only ignorant of the history but also prove themselves ignorant of how change has come. It is quite likely that if African Americans never protested but waited for “good folks” to do the right thing we would still be living in Jim Crow segregation at least. And “good folks” would still be saying, “Just wait; now is not the time.” And “good Christian folks” would still be mouthing “pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities” as Dr. King put it in “Letter from a Birmingham Jail.”

A good number of folks who think they are protecting the unity of the church with exhortations to quietude and denial of injustice do little more than echo the voices of people 50 years ago who opposed progress and equality. Perhaps that’s the very reason it sounds to them like I’m setting things back. They call for quietude while claiming to celebrate a reconciliation their accommodationist position never contributed to.

Let me make this plain: It is not pointing out injustice that creates injustice. It is not pointing out racial insensitivity, animosity, or racism that creates racial insensitivity, animosity, or racism. It is not pointing out disunity that creates disunity. The long track record of history demonstrates that bypointing out those things we give ourselves opportunity for real justice, opportunity for a real redress of racism, and opportunity for a true unity.

Pointing out these things is not an act of cynicism or pessimism (at least for me). Our history (by which I mean American history, of which African American history is a part) and the progress it shows encourages me. I think we’ve come a long, long way. Let me illustrate how far with a simple sentence:

“Yesterday I sat on a plane next to a white woman, and we had a wonderful conversation.”

You probably think nothing of that sentence. The fact that it doesn’t even register curiosity is evidence of how far we’ve come. Just 50 years ago, it was highly unlikely that I could afford a plane ticket. That’s economic progress. Certainly 50 years ago I’m unlikely to be able to take public transportation with integrated seating sections. That’s legal progress. Fifty years ago talking to a white woman in an intimate way could excite mob violence and get me killed. That’s social progress. We can take all that progress for granted either by acting as if the country just changed its mind one day or by failing to realize countless lives engaged in unimaginable sacrifice made possible that simple sentence with its profound achievements. We honor those people and their sacrifices better if we keep our shoulders to the plow in the cause of even more equality and justice.

So the next time you hear someone say or read someone write that someone has set racial reconciliation back 50 years, you might just ask yourself, Is the person saying that representing the views of those who earned the 50 years of progress or the view of those who 50 years ago were opposed to it? Dig a little deeper, know the history, and be careful about whom you charge with setting things back.

]]>Strife Is Catchyhttps://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/strife-is-catchy/
Thu, 19 Apr 2018 13:17:02 +0000http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/?post_type=thabiti-anyabwile&p=124667Tale-bearing and strife-kindling are bigger problems than the Church realizes.]]>

Feelings sometimes run hot in the blogosphere. That’s understandable given (a) some issues discussed, like racism, are already volatile and (b) we often don’t know the individuals we are engaging. Heat and anonymity combust, and often we end up understanding less than before the post or tweet was written.

A lot depends on the state of our hearts when we first read a piece. Are we tired? Grumpy? Fearful? Angry? Sad? Discouraged? Weak? Gullible? We may not always be aware of our emotional and spiritual state as we read. Morever, we may not be aware of how the opinions, attitudes, and views of others might be affecting our reading. Did the tweet or post that first brought the issue to our attention also pass along an attitude or perspective that we took into our reading?

It seems to me that happened a lot over this last two weeks. I wrote in an admittedly confrontational way about a touchy (to put it mildly) topic, and quite a number of people came to the post not on its own terms but carrying the angst, anger, attitude, and bias of the persons who alerted them to the post. I happily spent a lot of time in email and online trying to help people distinguish what I actually wrote from what they had heard elsewhere. People almost always responded in those discussions with some variety of, “Oh, I would say that too.” Or perhaps they still objected to my style in the post or insisted I must mean x or y, but the temperature went way down and real exchange was possible.

All of that to say, as with all things, we should be careful to read others fairly (even if critically) and should avoid as best as possible allowing our reading to be prejudiced by others. The more heated the topic the more important this is.

The warnings of Proverbs regarding strife applies to both the writer and the reader:

“Hatred stirs up strife, but love covers all offenses.” (Prov. 10:12)

“By insolence comes nothing but strife, but with those who take advice is wisdom.” (Prov. 13:10)

“A hot-tempered man stirs up strife, but he who is slow to anger quiets contention.” (Prov. 15:18)

Note the various emotions, passions, and sins that give rise to strife: hatred, insolence, anger, dishonesty, love for transgression, foolishness, scoffing, quarrelsomeness, greed, and wrath. It’s helpful to remember that along with the strife often comes these emotions, passions, and sins. It’s all rather contagious. And, sadly, those really given to these sins do not seem capable of stopping. It’s a character rather than an incident.

Well does the New Testament put such strife in the category of reprobate behavior (Rom. 1:29) and sins of the flesh (1 Cor. 3:3; Gal. 5:20). For that reason we ought to be careful of causing strife (say, with my writing) or of furthering strife (say, by carrying the tales and attitudes of others in comments). According to some of these Proverbs, we should: lovingly cover offense, take advice, be slow to anger, avoid whispering, quit before quarreling, remain aloof to strife, drive out scoffers, and trust the Lord.

I suspect tale-bearing and strife-kindling are bigger problems than the church realizes. I suspect it’s a blind spot for many of us. The reason I suspect that is because the false brethren of Jude’s letter—mockers, grumblers, complainers and scoffers (Jude 16-19)—were able to make their way into the church without the church noticing them (Jude 4). For a time, they appeared to be Christians. Over time, their true natures were revealed—but not before they had carried some off with them and had left others doubting and endangered (Jude 22-23).

How could such people have been unnoticed in the church? Two possibilities: Either they were extremely deceptive and effective at pretending to be Christians, or the church was too comfortable with these sins and shared in them. Perhaps a combination of the two is possible. But in either case, Jude warns against such false brethren and at the very least we should be aware of any tendency in us toward mockery, scoffing, strife, and the host of motivations that might lead us to strife. We should be careful of how others may encourage these things in us as we read them online. May the Lord give us grace to do it!

]]>Sin Is Irrationalhttps://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/sin-is-irrational/
Wed, 18 Apr 2018 11:50:08 +0000http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/?post_type=thabiti-anyabwile&p=124512Sin is irrational. But Christ Jesus clothes us in our right mind, the mind of Christ. ]]>

All sin. How so?

Sin is irrational in its break away from God. If God is the source of supreme pleasure, beauty, love, and goodness—and He is—then turning away from God makes no sense. It’s irrational.

Sin is irrational in its short-sightedness. If there’s a way that seems right to man but the end is death and we choose that sinful way, then we think, feel, and act irrationally. It’s irrational to refuse eternal life in order to make a mess of this mortal life. That’s sin.

Sin is irrational in its undervaluing of the soul. What will a man give in exchange for his soul? If you could gain the entire world and lose your soul what profit would you have? Sin says there’s something worth losing your soul for. That’s irrational.

Sin is irrational in its choice of the temporary and fleeting over the permanent and immovable. We all face the allure of the “temporary pleasures of sin.” However, those pleasures seek to distract us from an inheritance kept by the power of God through faith and a city whose foundations will never be shaken or destroyed. To choose what only lasts for a moment over what lasts forever is to act without rationality.

Sin is irrational in its tendency to distort our view of the world from the view God establishes. Sin crafts a worldview. It’s a false worldview wherein things act or ought to act in keeping with the desires of the sinner. The sinner feels a kind of invincibility even though his/her plans come to nothing and all around them people perish. We are meant to see the world as God sees it, to call black “black” and white “white,” to call up “up” and down “down,” in agreement with God. Sin flips the world upside down and inside out as we break ourselves into a million irrational pieces.

In all of this, sin deceives and destroys.

Every opting for sin reduces us below the beasts of the field. Though they do not have the faculties of thought and reason, the beasts do what they were made to do. But man, God’s apex creation, made in his image and likeness, uses all the wonder and grace of being human to defile and distort that image and his purpose. In this way sin is not only irrational, it’s a tremendous violence committed toward our very being.

Perhaps the most rational thing we can do, then, is quit our love affair with sin, turn back to God in repentance, and trust in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. In Christ the image so disfigured by sin is being renewed in true holiness and righteousness and in the knowledge of its Creator. Though the cross is foolishness to the world, to those of us being saved it is sanity, power, and love from God. Faith in Jesus and the life that conforms to the sound doctrine of the gospel returns us to God, fixes our nearsightedness, rightly values the soul, opts for the permanent and immovable, and helps us see the world the way God does. Nothing else could be so rational. Christ Jesus clothes us in our right mind, the mind of Christ.

]]>Reading Jupiter Hammonhttps://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/124214/
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/124214/#respondTue, 17 Apr 2018 09:20:13 +0000http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/?post_type=thabiti-anyabwile&p=124214Jupiter Hammon is the father of African-American literature. How does his context help us understand his aims?]]>

I love me some Jupiter Hammon! For those new to the name, Hammon is the father of African-American literature. He, along with Phillis Wheatley, were the first African Americans to publish works of literature. Both were evangelical Christians and both infused early African-American literature with biblical themes, tropes, and imagery. I first wrote about Hammon and Wheatley in The Decline of African-American Theology to illustrate African-American theological commitments in the first generation of African American writers.

Darryll B. Harrison is certainly correct to cast Hammon as an evangelical with a thoroughly biblical understanding of human depravity and a relentless focus on the gospel of Jesus Christ as the remedy (see his post here). Mr. Harrison also correctly notes that many people today would view Hammon as a sell-out for not stridently and radically opposing slavery in his extant works. Certain folks do not appreciate what they see as his “accommodationist” strategy.

I thought Harrison’s post was helpful on a lot of fronts, especially in insisting that the root problem with racism is enmity rather than “race” itself. About which I largely agree.

But there are a couple of things that should be balanced in Harrison’s writing.

Jupiter Hammon in Context

First, it seems to me Harrison fails to put Hammon inside the restrictive rhetorical parameters he would have faced as a slave in the late 1700 and early 1800s. This is a mistake Hammon’s more “progressive” critics make too. If we do not read him in his own context, imagining the strictures and consequences he faced making any public statements, we’ll read too much at some points and too little at others depending on our own biases rather than Hammon’s. We must begin by asking ourselves, What was possible for Hammon to say as a slave whose life and career were overseen by white owners and white society in the late 1700s and early 1800s? And what strategy might Hammon use to say what he wished while also avoiding the disapproval and consequences of owners and society? If we don’t put him in his context, or if we judge him by our own, we won’t get to know the real Hammon.

That’s what I think happens with Harrison’s piece. Harrison zooms in on the evangelical anthropology so richly there in Hammon and then seems to suggest by this singular focus that Hammon was only concerned about gospel preaching. But if we skim Hammon’s Address I think we’ll see head nods, innuendos, and comments that are more complex and that exploited the restrictive rhetorical parameters of his day perhaps as best as anyone could.

For example, consider how Hammon opens by lamenting the condition of slaves: “I can with truth and sincerity join with the apostle Paul, when speaking of his own nation the Jews, and say, ‘That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh.’ Yes my dear brethren, when I think of you, which is very often, and of the poor, despised, and miserable state you are in, as to the things of this world, and when I think of your ignorance and stupidity, and the great wickedness of the most of you, I am pained to the heart.” It should be obvious that Hammon uses Paul’s solidarity and empathy for the Jews as basis for his own solidarity and empathy with enslaved Africans. Moreover, there’s something both slave and owner could likely appreciate in Hammon’s stated concern. The reference to the state of the slaves identifies with and acknowledges their suffering. The reference to the “wickedness” of slaves would have approval from any slave owners overhearing the address. But from the start, Hammon gently acknowledges his sorrow about the slave’s state in this world. There’s no doubt where his empathy lies.

Then Hammon goes on to use a strategy that most evangelical conservatives would hate today. He evokes and uses his own privilege as a comparatively well-to-do slave who spent most of his life working as something of a bookkeeper for his owners. He actually uses the word. Hammon writes:

I have great reason to be thankful that my lot has been so much better than most slaves have had. I suppose I have had more advantages and privileges than most of you, who are slaves have ever known, and I believe more than many white people have enjoyed, for which I desire to bless God, and pray that he may bless those who have given them to me.

At this point, Hammon looks pretty in step with what gets denounced in evangelical circles today. He first identifies with the slave, then considers his privilege, gives thanks to God, and concludes by intimating how he might use it to help the oppressed. Folks who speak against acknowledgement and use of privilege do so ahistorically.

Hammon continues with his first major point exhorting slaves to obey their masters. Why start there? Well, it’s a shibboleth for Black speakers of Hammon’s period. Unless this message is taught—the only message ever really sanctioned by slaveholding society—then Hammon would likely be shut down and endangered. However, please note that Hammon doesn’t expound this theme without subtly raising the question of whether slavery itself was right. The first words in the section begin, “Now whether it is right, and lawful, in the Sight of God, for them to make slaves of us or not . . .” He’s cheeky. He’s not Frederick Douglass, a free abolitionist blasting slave owners and the slave institution; he’s doing what he can within the confines of being owned by another.

The second point in the Address is like the first—it addresses a concern slave masters would have followed by one Hammon has: stealing and profaneness, respectively. The entire section along with the first is God-centered, orienting the slave toward the expectations of God above their owners. I am convinced Hammon believes what he says and writes through these first two sections. I also believe he’s doing the work of an evangelist as he writes:

Pray my dear friends, believe and realize, that there is a God—that he is great and terrible beyond what you can think—that he keeps you in life every moment—and that he can send you to that awful Hell, that you laugh at, in an instant, and confine you there for ever, and that he will certainly do it, if you do not repent.

Hammon structures the sermon so that he front loads the over-watching concerns of white audiences. But he builds the address in a way that centers God and paves the way for gospel appeal. Notice how he puts freedom on the table for younger enslaved Blacks, alludes to natural law in support of that freedom, points to how whites prove the value of freedom when they fought for their liberty just a decade or so earlier, and then makes the gospel paramount:

Now I acknowledge that liberty is a great thing, and worth seeking for, if we can get it honestly, and by our good conduct, prevail on our masters to set us free: Though for my own part I do not wish to be free, yet I should be glad, if others, especially the young negroes were to be free, for many of us, who are grown up slaves, and have always had masters to take care of us, should hardly know how to take care of ourselves; and it may be more for our own comfort to remain as we are. That liberty is a great thing we may know from our own feelings, and we may likewise Judge so from the conduct of the white-people, in the late war. How much money has been spent, and how many lives has been lost, to defend their liberty.I must say that I have hoped that God would open their eyes, when they were so much engaged for liberty, to think of the state of the poor blacks, and to pity us. He has done it in some measure, and has raised us up many friends, for which we have reason to be thankful, and to hope in his mercy. What may be done further, he only knows, for known unto God are all his ways from the beginning. But this my dear brethren IS by no means, the greatest thing we have to be concerned about. Getting our liberty in this world, is nothing to our having the liberty of the children of God. Now the Bible tells us that we are all by nature, sinners, that we are slaves to sin and Satan, and that unless we are converted, or born again, we must be miserable forever. Christ says, except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God, and all that do not see the kingdom of God, must be in the kingdom of darkness. (italics added for emphasis)

The order here is important. Hammon argues from the lesser to the greater. But in reaching the greater—salvation in Christ—Hammon by no means erases the lesser—freedom in this life. Hammon, an evangelical, would certainly say it profits man nothing to gain the whole world and lose his soul. But with as much latitude as allowed him in that time, he also makes it clear that freedom should be had by all, including slave. He even seems to shame white people—notice, as a group—for the hypocrisy of investing money and lives to win their freedom while denying slaves the same.

Harrison leaves these kinds of comments out of his post when he appropriates Hammon against “social justice warriors” and those who see justice in the biblical agenda. Harrison only cites the concluding paragraph, ignoring the comments made beforehand. But a fair reading of Hammon in historical and literary context actually situates him closer to those who support justice and call on white people to turn from any ways they may have denied justice to others. This is not “sin by proxy” as Harrison put it; it’s simply noting that some sin metastasizes into the entire culture. When that happens, the entire culture needs to be addressed with prophetic force and gospel hope.

Enmity and Ethnicity

Now, as for the thesis of Mr. Harrison’s post, I agree that “the problem is enmity, not ethnicity.” Hammon would agree. But we do violence to the issue if we fail to recognize that a fuller statement of the problem would be something like: “the problem is that enmity that expresses itself against ethnicities.”

By leaving off how the enmity gets expressed, we essentially make the issue abstract and ambiguous. It’s like saying, “the problem is cancer” but not specifying what kind of cancer and where it’s located. It’s like saying “the problem is sex, not adultery” when you’re trying to get a husband to stop cheating. That makes little sense. It may help the adulterer feel better about himself but it does not address the actual sin committed against the wife and family. The adultery, like the racism, occurs in a particular historical and social context without which we’re left grasping for understanding, let alone remedy.

Conclusion

I appreciate Mr. Harrison’s post. As I said, where it deals with enmity exegetically and theologically, I entirely agree. But I think it misses the point where it fails to identify how such enmity gets expressed in particular historical and social contexts. And I think it’s unfortunate that a luminary like Jupiter Hammon gets misappropriated in service to an argument I do not think he would make.

I would highly commend reading Jupiter Hammon’s collected work. It will bless careful reading. Oh, and for the curious, there’s some manuscript evidence discovered in recent years that later Hammon poetry struck a more strident tone against slavery. See here.

]]>https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/124214/feed/0Woke Is . . .https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/woke-is/
Mon, 16 Apr 2018 13:18:19 +0000http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/?post_type=thabiti-anyabwile&p=124143By their mockery, scoffing and hatred they make some form of being “woke” necessary. So may the church get woke and stay woke.]]>

Yesterday a dear brother asked me, “What do you think about woke church?” Seems these days all my blogging is answering questions of one sort or another. And this seems like a good question to answer publicly, since there’s so much talk about being “woke” or “wokeness” from both advocates and opponents.

I’m not sure this adds much to the discussion, but it’s the gist of my answer yesterday.

Woke: A Lineage

First, being “woke” isn’t at all new. I know Carl Ellis has been trying to help people understand that in some of his public talks. But it seems a lot of younger people think they’re experiencing something new. Solomon taught a long, long time ago, “there’s nothing new under the sun.”

What we call “woke” today is pretty close to the Afrocentricism of the 1980s. Afrocentricism, a word coined by Dr. Molefi Asante, professor of African-American studies at Temple University at the time, was about centering Africa and Africa-descended peoples in their worldview much the way Europe has always been at the center of the worldview of European peoples. Afrocentrism taught that Black people should see the world as Black people.

Of course, before Afrocentrism in the 1980s there was the Black Arts Movement and Black consciousness movement of the 1960s—a movement that both inspired and also drew strength from Pan-Africanism and its connections with independence movements in Africa and the Caribbean. That period gave us “Black” as an ethnic identifier. People don’t realize it today, but calling ourselves “Black” was not so much motivated by describing skin color as much as it was a political statement about what is beautiful and valiant, re-appropriating what had been a slur in the mouth of others and refusing to be erased in the world. The discovery of this “consciousness” was the discovery of a certain pleasure. “The pleasure of being black was a core part of the cultural revolution staged during the Black Power movement” (Margo Natalie Crawford, “What Was Is“: The Time and Space of Entanglement Erased by Post-Blackness, in Houston A. Baker and K. Merinda Simmons, The Trouble with Post-Blackness, p. 36). To be “woke,” then, builds on this discovery: that being “Black” is something to take pleasure in.

But we can go back even further. Before the Black Arts, Black Power, and Black Consciousness movements there was in the 1920s the New Negro movement of the Harlem Renaissance and the Négritude Movement in Africa. Alain Locke in Harlem with Aimé Césaire in Martinique and Leopold Senghor in West Africa were among the leading thinkers of these movements. Following the defeats of counter-Reconstruction and Plessy v. Ferguson, Negro artists and intellectuals began to give a more strident voice to the complaints, complexity, and beauty of Negro life and thought. This phase of the identity project featured an international awareness and exchange, and gave rise to a number of publications and outlets. The movement, like all historical iterations of what we call “woke,” sought to forge an identity both independent of white determinants and accepted by the wider world. In a 1923 essay entitled “The New Negro Faces America,” West Indian writer Eric D. Walrond described the New Negro thus:

He does not want . . . to be like the white man. He is coming to realize the great possibilities within himself. The New Negro, who does not want to go back to Africa, is fondly cherishing an ideal—and that is, that the time will come when America will look upon the Negro not as a savage with an inferior mentality, but as a civilized man.

Before the New Negro movement, there was Ethiopianism (1880s-1920s). On the African continent, African Christians broke away from the control of white Anglican and Methodist churches who would not share leadership of the church even on African soil. That church movement took place at the same time as a wider literary and political movement in British colonies and territories sprouted. The wider movement reclaimed Ethiopia as one of the oldest continuous great civilizations in the world. From the Bible, they drew inspiration from Psalm 68:31, “Princes shall come of Egypt; Ethiopia shall soon stretch out her hands unto God.” You would find allusions to this text in everything from slave narratives to sermons to political speeches.

We could perhaps go further back. I think an essential thing to note is this: to be Ethiopian, Negro, Black, or African-American (choose your descriptor and time period) has always involved a massive project in self-definition, self-determination and self-affirmation in a national and world context characterized by anti-Black racism and oppression. That’s the one thing these periods have in common. That’s why some version of “woke” appears in nearly every generation. Each generation has to forge and reclaim a sense of self that’s healthy, affirming, and productive in order to withstand and resist the identity-twisting and person-debasing ideologies launched against us.

Woke Church?

This has massive implications for local church ministries in communities of color. Churches must understand the need to reconstitute the whole person with biblical teaching responsive to the lived realities of those communities. In simpler words, our approach to discipleship must simultaneously repair the psychic and social destruction done to the identities/personhood of Black people while recognizing and equipping them to counter the social and political realities that contribute to that destruction in the first place. We have to teach people how to be their ethnic selves in a way that’s consistent with the Bible and how to live fruitfully in contexts that don’t affirm their ethnic selves. Hence, we need a “woke church.”

But it’s not just African Americans who need a “woke church.” All people need it. Even the cursory history sketched above reveals that we “are tied together in a single garment of destiny,” as Dr. King put it. There’s a mutuality to our existence. The only way for us to lower the necessity for a “woke church” is for the people and forces making “wokeness” necessary to wake up to their part in the dynamic. As long as there are racist forces at work in the world, the sufferers of that racism are right to find ways to express and affirm their identity and will need tools (spiritual, cultural, economic, and so on) to fight back against those forces.

We may need to find biblically richer and more careful ways of doing the work, but that the work needs to be done seems evident to me. Keep on Dr. Mason! There’s a world of difference between people who want you to be better and people who want you to quit.

From where I sit, “woke church” continues in the tradition of Martin Delaney, Edward W. Blyden, Henry McNeal Turner, Alexander Crummell, and a great cloud of other witnesses who in the Spirit of God sought a more faithful way to live the faith as African Americans when the rest of the world despised them. The mockers mock. The haters hate. That’s what they’ve been doing for the entire sojourn of Black people in contact with the West. By their mockery, scoffing, and hatred they make some form of being “woke” necessary. So may the church get woke and stay woke.

]]>The Chicken Came Firsthttps://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/chicken-came-first/
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/chicken-came-first/#respondSat, 14 Apr 2018 21:43:52 +0000http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/?post_type=thabiti-anyabwile&p=124078The chicken racists of bygone centuries laid the egg of “race.” If we wring the chicken’s neck with confrontation and confession we won’t have to worry about their rotten eggs.]]>

On the way home from T4G, a very gracious man came to talk with me in the airport. He was prayerful, respectful, and gentle. I admired his manner even before he asked his questions.

He humbly posed a question I realize I should answer more publicly. I thought I had done this before, but apparently I have not. Here’s how my friend and brother put the question:

You have said you have not moved from your 2008 T4G talk on “race.” When I think of your recent writing it seems to me you have. Can you help me understand how it could be the case that you haven’t moved?

I wish I could convey his humble and honest tone in a blog post, because it’s a model for how you ask a question about a controversy.

Here’s my answer in a nutshell: The 2008 talk was a biblical theology on “race” arguing that there is only one “race” descended from Adam and Eve (Gen. 3:21; Acts 17:26). I absolutely believe that today. It’s what the Bible teaches.

But the talk was not a biblical treatment of racism. That would be an entirely different sermon, because unlike “race,” racism is real. I would have rooted racism in sins like pride, hatred, partiality, and a failure to love all expressed along the lines of “race.”

Chicken or Egg Question

Now, many people think that by dispelling the notion of “race” we thereby dispel (or at least make more difficult) any claims to racism. For them racism is what happens when we do bad things with “race.” They assume “race” comes first and racism perverts it. So if we could only get rid of “race” then we can be done with racism.

I actually don’t agree with this line of thinking. I think the opposite relation exists between “race” and racism.

Firstcomes racism, then comes “race.” The idea of “race” is not the root of racism but the fruit of racism. “Race” is the debunked pseudo-scientific theory that racist philosophers and “scientists” made up to give racism legitimacy. Then racist thinking, covered in a patina of scientific credibility, worked its way into the bloodstream of white society and eventually nearly all societies. It became so dominant a way of thinking that both those who benefited and also those who suffered from racism adopted the theory and worldview. I am indebted to Fields and Fields in Racecraft: The Soul of Inequality in American Life for helping me see things in the opposite direction.

So, I do not write or speak about racism because I assume the reality of “race.” I write about racism because I see the reality of racism and want to pluck up that poisonous root. When you hear or read me decrying racism, do not think, Why must he bring up “race.” I hope you will think, How does he see racism—fear, prejudice, partiality, hatred, favoritism, and so on—at work?

“Race” is a distraction, an illusion created by charlatans hiding their sin. Today many people, like audiences at a magic show, wittingly and unwittingly, participate in the racists’ parlor trick. But progress can only truly be made if we simultaneously reject unbiblical anthropology while calling out a real biblical sin. I am trusting that as intelligent readers and listeners you will hold together two complementary strategies simultaneously: the rejection of “race” as a biological reality, on the one hand, and on the other the identification and rejection of the real sins at the root of “race.”

The chicken racists of bygone centuries laid the egg of “race.” If we wring the chicken’s neck with confrontation and confession we won’t have to worry about their rotten eggs.

]]>https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/chicken-came-first/feed/0He Said, She Saidhttps://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/he-said-she-said/
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/he-said-she-said/#respondThu, 12 Apr 2018 14:35:49 +0000http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/?post_type=thabiti-anyabwile&p=123677Well, if the slowdown in my mentions is any indication, it seems some of the brouhaha of the last week has gone the way of most internet drama. We’re starting to get it all out and perhaps to think more critically. Hopefully, the most distracting voices are now tired, and folks who want to think hard will keep at it. At least that’s what I hope. I realize there’s the risk of everything turning into an unending game of “he said, she said,” and ain’t nobody got time for that, but we should keep things as clear as possible as...]]>

Well, if the slowdown in my mentions is any indication, it seems some of the brouhaha of the last week has gone the way of most internet drama. We’re starting to get it all out and perhaps to think more critically. Hopefully, the most distracting voices are now tired, and folks who want to think hard will keep at it. At least that’s what I hope.

I realize there’s the risk of everything turning into an unending game of “he said, she said,” and ain’t nobody got time for that, but we should keep things as clear as possible as we go forward. It’s in that spirit that I want to provide a list of restatements and clarifications.

Who Should Repent of What?

Some people have erroneously said, and some quite intentionally so, that I have charged all white people today with the sins of all white people yesterday, simultaneously committing a racist act by lumping all white people together and making innocent people guilty of the sins of others. And they reject the idea that they should have to repent for something they did not do.

For the record, I reject that idea too. Here’s what I actually wrote:

“I don’t need all white people to feel guilty about the 1950s and ’60s—especially those who weren’t even alive. But I do need all of us to suspect that sin isn’t done working its way through society. I do need all my neighbors—especially my brothers and sisters in Christ—to recognize that no sin has ever been eliminated from the world and certainly not eliminated simply with the passage of time and a willingness of some people to act as if it was never there. If this country will make any significant stride toward freedom, it must have enough courage to at least make it clear that Dr. King didn’t just “die” but was “assassinated,” “murdered,” “violently killed” and with the approval of far too many in this country. Until and unless there is repentance of this animus and murderous hatred, the country will remain imprisoned to a seared conscience. Until this country and the church learns to confess its particular sins particularly, we will not overcome the Adamic hostility that infects the human soul and distorts human potential.” (emphasis added)

The paragraph begins by saying in so many words, “It’s not about feeling guilty for the bygone era.” Then it continues by saying in so many words, “Don’t think things have changed so much we don’t need to worry about those sins still being with us.” It ends by pointing specifically to the sins of hatred and animus that we do need to be repentant of in our generation as in any other. I think that’s entirely reasonable and stand by that argument.

Earlier in the post I wrote, “The Civil Rights leaders standing on the balcony on that dark day pointed not only to Ray and the area where the shot was fired, but figuratively pointed to the entire country in its sinister hatred and racism.”

In the concluding paragraph of the original post I write: “My white neighbors and Christian brethren can start by at least saying their parents and grandparents and this country are complicit in murdering a man who only preached love and justice” (emphasis in the original).

Any good reader who knows to carry an argument through the entire post might reasonably conclude that the concluding reference to “parents and grandparents and this country” holds the same figurative or generalized meaning. It’s not about every single white person’s mother, father, grandmother, and grandfather being a rabid racist.

Any call for repentance in this generation is about observing and turning from any sin that has continued into our generation.

So what do I ask white brethren and neighbors to do? Do I ask them to repent of the previous generation’s sins? No.

Read it again. I call for a rather small thing, in my opinion. I ask them to admit, to say, that the generation of the 1950s-’60s was complicit (in context, by their racism) in the murder of Dr. King. I did not say so-and-so’s grandmother or grandfather actually held the gun and pulled the trigger. I did not say every white American at the time was a racist. I said we should admit what is obviously true: America was openly and virulently racist in the period in question.

Based on all the historical evidence so readily available, that should be easy to say or admit. It doesn’t require anyone today to “repent of the sins of others.” It simply requires people to be honest.

Corporate Solidarity

Of course, my post does include a healthy dose of corporate solidarity. I do not, as some slanderously contend, make James Earl Ray the federal head of white people. I explicitly tether this whole argument to Adam and the legacy of sin he ushered into the world. Here’s the sentence: “Until this country and the Church learns to confess its particular sins particularly, we will not overcome the Adamic hostility that infects the human soul and distorts human potential” (emphasis added).

What some people really decried was any sense that they had any solidarity with the previous generation when it comes to their sin. Now, that’s just bad theology. Everyone with that objection would or should admit we fall into sin in Adam. That’s solidarity on a universal level. But the Bible goes further. In several places in the Bible we find God’s people being called to recognize their solidarity as a people with the sins of previous generations.

One of my favorite theologians, who shall remain nameless to protect them from the online scurrilous, wrote this to me in a text:

Regarding conservatives who reject the notion of “corporate solidarity” with respect to guilt, I’d be sincerely curious to know how they explain Moses’s consistent rhetorical strategy in Deuteronomy. He’s addressing the next generation as if they were the ones who saw YHWH’s mighty works and heard his voice at Sinai and then who rebelled against him at Kadesh. His strategy isn’t implicit, it’s explicit (cf. 5:3). Why? Well he knows them and sees the same problem (9:24). They may not have been the ones who refused to take the promised land, but their present actions and present character is such that Moses knows they must come to grips with the same reality of their rebellious heart (and find the same solution).

I imagine there may have been some Israelites on the plains of Moab who heard Moses’s final words who might have thought, Why is he saying “you,” as if it were my fault? It was my father and grandfather who rejected YHWH at Kadesh!” And, in that case, it would have been an internal mechanism to avoid staring in the face the reality of their desperate need for God’s mercy. So they would have missed the spectacular goodness and mercy of God’s grace to offer them the promised land again and to promise to circumcise their hearts in the latter days (30:1-10). In other words, ironically, that internal mechanism to wiggle out of the rhetoric of corporate solidarity would have led them to harden their heart . . . just like their father and grandfather . . . and forfeit the grace of God.

I imagine that it’s possible for us to speak about corporate solidarity in a way that is unhelpful or that doesn’t edify, but it’s good to see that Moses’s pastoral strategy deliberately collapsed generational distinctions because (1) the generations faced the same problem and solution and (2) he sincerely, passionately, desperately wanted these people before him to hold fast to God and take hold of the promise of rest. Love drove his rhetorical strategy, including his insistence on corporate solidarity (with respect both to receiving certain privileges and the guilt of rejecting those privileges).

That says it well, in my opinion. As even Doug Wilson pointed out in one of his posts, we see the same dynamic reasoning at work with Israel in the days of our Lord’s earthly ministry and in the immediate aftermath when Peter blazes with Holy Spirit unction at Pentecost.

To be plain: Rejecting corporate solidarity with appeals to individualism leaves us vulnerable to the same sins of our forebears. That’s why we need to admit their errors and sins and why refusing to do so can be dangerous. Sometimes those sins can be particular to our clans, tribes, and families we call “race” but better known as ethnic groups. That’s the pastoral point of the post, and it should not be lost in all the noise based on things I did not say.

Conclusion

So to review, dear reader:

1. I do not think and did not say “all white people today are guilty of the murder of Dr. King yesteryear.” I did not say “all white people in King’s generation were guilty of murdering King” as if they themselves pulled the trigger. Based upon the white Americans who joined the Civil Rights struggle on the streets and in government, I would not even dare to think or say all white people of the era were racists.

2. I do contend the general character of the country and that of most white people at the time was racist, and a great many who were not expressively racists were bystanders who did not seek justice and correct oppression. I do think that makes them complicit in the state of affairs at the at time in the same way that our silence to any widespread and known injustice today makes us complicit in our day.

3. I do think we need to (a) admit the sins and errors of the previous generation (which is not the same as repenting of them as if they were our sins), and (b) we need to repent of any similar sins we see in ourselves today.

Don’t let all the noise distract from these points. Debate the points if you like. But keep in mind that it’s easy to get lost in all the “he said, she said.”

]]>https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/he-said-she-said/feed/0Evangelical Gnosticismhttps://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/evangelical-gnosticism/
Wed, 11 Apr 2018 04:12:56 +0000http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/?post_type=thabiti-anyabwile&p=123478Evangelical gnostics sever the root of gospel grace from the shoot of gospel sanctification and the fruit of the good gospel works that glorify God.]]>

Some parts of evangelicalism have a hearing impairment. Spiritually. When it comes to hearing the Bible on certain issues.

I think it’s a discipleship and preaching problem. If your entire spiritual life you’ve essentially been taught to view the word “justice” as intimating “justification,” you’re actually going to misunderstand large sections of the Bible. You won’t have categories for an ethical and practical righteousness without “hearing” legalism and works-righteousness. Consequently, you’ll spiritualize those texts, remove them from their context, blunt their ethical force, and feel like you’re doing good “biblical theology” or “Christ-centered preaching” when in fact you’re just not hearing what thus saith the Lord.

Evangelical discipleship can be overly intellectual and overly pietistic. It’s understandable. Evangelicalism from its start with German Pietist influences, renewal movements in British Anglicanism (think the Wesleys and Whitefield), and the revivalist theology of Edwards all coalesce to make evangelicalism a “heart religion.” What matters most is the “personal relationship with God” and the inward piety of close communion with God.

To be fair, all those movements that form historic evangelicalism were necessary. Formality and coldness had crept into Anglicanism and other denominations. Revival was needed in the developing Americas. But the correction became the norm. What should have been a vital improvement added to the spiritual life of the church became the almost exclusive concern of the church. So we get a “heart religion” with no heart when it comes to the embodied lives it touches. This is how evangelicalism could so long allow and even actively commend and support the contradiction of slaveholding and gospel preaching and later the contradiction of Jim Crow and gospel preaching. Evangelicalism has been compromised in this way since the Wesleys and Whitefield and Edwards. Since their ministries, evangelicalism has had centuries of learning to hear poorly. Learning to spiritualize God’s Word such that Christianity has become an almost disembodied faith.

So we end up with a vision of Christianity that lacks any sufficient theology of the body. We end up with an evangelical outlook that includes almost zero systematic and biblical theological reflection on identity, “race,” racism, and so on. We end up with an escapist religion that seldom prepares people to stare the world in the face and to do real good in the world while we make our way home to glory.

What we have in some quarters of Christianity is an “evangelical gnosticism.” Gnostics have been around a long, long time, y’all. We hear so much about “ethnic gnosticism.” We’re told some people, usually African Americans, have hidden knowledge about what it means to be members of that ethnic group, knowledge that outsiders can’t access or comment on. For what it’s worth, though I wouldn’t call it “ethnic gnosticism,” there are some people who act like that. And not just a handful of people either. Update: The reason I would not use the term is because I think other people throw it around to gain permission to speak about things and people they haven’t done the homework on. So, yeah, comment on issues you see in other people’s history, culture and the like, but be well read and at least a little experienced on the things you’re commenting on. Otherwise, “ethnic gnosticism” becomes a cute excuse for displaying ethnic chauvinism, ethnic ignorance, ethnic intolerance, and the like.

But right alongside this “ethnic gnosticism,” and in battle with it for supremacy, is “evangelical gnosticism.” The evangelical gnostic replies to the supposed ethnic gnostic, “All of this body stuff (race, racism, and so on) is evil. What really matters is the spiritual. Be more spiritual, because it very nearly doesn’t matter what you do with the body or to the body—especially if it’s history.” And therein is the heresy. Therein is the blinder that keeps the evangelical gnostic from considering rightly all the biblical instruction about gritty, sweaty, earthly toil in the cause of Christ. It’s evangelical gnosticism that attempts to give “justice” a bad name though the word/idea is all over the Bible. It’s evangelical gnosticism that attempts to rule out Christian ethical duty in favor of “just preaching”—which should not be confused with preaching that is just. By emphasizing this gnostic division evangelical gnostics sever the root of gospel grace from the shoot of gospel sanctification and the fruit of the good gospel works (like doing justice) that glorify God. They bury beneath the soil the entire gospel plant so that bud and flower are hardly ever seen.

But the good life comes from divine wisdom. That wisdom literally comes to us to give “instruction in wise dealing, in righteousness, justice, and equity” (Prov. 1:3). Here’s one test to know whether you might be an evangelical gnostic: Did you even realize the Book of Proverbs was divinely inspired in part to teach us how to do justice? From the opening verses to Proverbs 31:8-9, Proverbs’ vision of the good life consistently includes justice among the God-fearing. If you haven’t seen that before or seen the theme of justice throughout the Bible, you may have a hearing impairment caused by evangelical gnostic preaching. In other words, not necessarily nefariously, you have been discipled into understanding only part of everything Jesus commanded. It’s time to begin learning a lot of other things our Lord commanded, too (say, Matt. 23:23). That’s going to require learning to hear better from the Book.

A little while ago I had the privilege of delivering lectures on preaching at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. In one lecture we did an overview of Proverbs on justice. If this all sounds new to you, give it a listen. I pray it helps us to hear better and without the gnostic influence.

]]>There Can Be No Reconciliation Where There Is No Truth-Telling Firsthttps://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/can-no-reconciliation-no-truth-telling-first/
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/can-no-reconciliation-no-truth-telling-first/#respondTue, 10 Apr 2018 03:05:29 +0000http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/?post_type=thabiti-anyabwile&p=123276I’m grateful Dr. James White has offered his thoughts regarding my recent posts here at the blog (here and here). I offered to post his thoughts here at Pure Church, but in the comings and goings of both our lives he has posted it at Alpha and Omega, and I’m happy to retweet it and link to it here. It’s a lengthy post, as is the reaction in some quarters online. I haven’t set myself the goal of responding to every post offered anywhere or every thought in a particular post. But there are a few things I want to...]]>

I’m grateful Dr. James White has offered his thoughts regarding my recent posts here at the blog (here and here). I offered to post his thoughts here at Pure Church, but in the comings and goings of both our lives he has posted it at Alpha and Omega, and I’m happy to retweet it and link to it here.

It’s a lengthy post, as is the reaction in some quarters online. I haven’t set myself the goal of responding to every post offered anywhere or every thought in a particular post. But there are a few things I want to respond to in Dr. White’s offering. We both “have lives” and “day jobs,” so I’ll try to be succinct.

Let’s Start at the Beginning

By which I mean our respective understandings of the 1950-’60s, the period of time I explicitly address in my original post and the generation of Americans (white Americans, specifically) I charge with creating the context of animus and hatred that made the assassination of Dr. King a possibility. You see, I didn’t think describing Jim Crow America as “racist” was a controversial or controvertible fact. I also didn’t think pointing out the obvious complicity of anyone not opposed to that racial caste system would be controversial, even if folks objected to the finger-in-your eye style of writing.

But, alas, I was wrong about the acceptability of those facts. Not opinions, but facts. Dr. White illustrates how different our readings of that history is when in the opening paragraphs he inserts this parenthetical thought, “since, of course, many in the country were only tangentially aware of, or concerned about, MLK and related matters.”

Now, dear reader, I’ll simply leave you to decide if such a claim can be substantiated by a preponderance of the evidence. De jure segregation was the law of the land. Discrimination in housing, employment, and education were sacrosanct. Then there were all the informal customs and expectations enforced by mob violence, proving as a Supreme Court justice famously remarked, “the Black man has no rights that a white man is bound to respect.” American churches were as segregated and complicit as American society—to its shame.

The advent of television put Dr. King and the Civil Rights Movement on national news all over the country and world. Hardly anyone was “tangentially aware of, or concerned about, MLK and related matters.” Friends, that’s hardly an informed opinion much less a summary of the historical facts. I say this as kindly as I can: it’s ignorance. It’s willful and dangerous ignorance that gets us off on two different feet in a conversation that desperately needs to begin with interlocking arms regarding the facts about our past and present. For that reason alone, I hesitate to go further.

But, with this statement, Dr. White actually illustrates the gist of my first post. Until white Americans and white Christians can tell the truth about that period, we’re stuck. And every time some cultural moment places weight and stress on our “racial” fault lines, we will feel inside and outside the church the tremors and quakes of being unprepared to deal because we’ve been unpracticed and unskilled at admitting the truth.

A little later he inserts another parenthetical in the midst of his explanation for a Christian unity based exclusively on the work of Christ: “Individuals who once hated every member of another ethnic group (and the history of this in the world is long, and nowhere limited to any particular spectrum of human skin color) can come to the Lord’s table with those they once hated without hesitation because all of those hatreds and hurts are in the past and are rendered irrelevant by the “new man” (italics are in the original).

What we’re getting here is a “both sides” view of history that suggests all parties are equally guilty of racism. Now, I agree that something like racism, ethnic bigotry, and other species of alienation and animus and idolatry of self exists among all people. But I was talking about 1950-’60s America. I was making a comment about a particular setting in which it cannot be said that both sides were equally guilty in the animus. African Americans have never carried out lynchings. African Americans have never passed “Jim Brown laws” to retaliate for Jim Crow laws. We have never systematically ostracized and oppressed white people as a group. The sin of the period was unilaterally and systematically directed from whites toward blacks.

One of the amazing things about African Americans is that we have survived for so long without giving fully into the racial animosity that could exist given how we’ve been treated. It’s a wonderful providence and humanly speaking we have millions of mothers and fathers and the likes of the Dr. Kings of the world to thank for teaching us not to give in to hate.

Until we get these basic points of history correct we’re not having the same conversation. And when we appear to equivocate about where the guilt and responsibility actually lie, we make it far too easy for strains of that former behavior, attitude, and complicity to continue unchecked.

Restating the Point

It is perhaps the case that I started replying to critics of my first post too slowly. Before you knew it, a good number of false claims and hasty interpretations were added to the already-provocative things I had written. A few examples:

I make James Earl Ray the “federal head” of all white people.

I accuse all white people of murdering Dr. King.

I claim that all white people are racist.

I pull a reverse-racist move by lumping all white people together.

Before you know it, with “interpretations” like this floating around, people are responding to everything except what I did say. They’re responding to their inferences and their angst but not to what I regard is a plain fact. To illustrate how plain, let’s leave 1950-’60s America and take a trip a couple of decades earlier to Nazi Germany.

Hitler’s Third Reich marched through Europe with hopes to establish his “super race.” Along the way he and his generals killed millions of Jewish people in concentration camps and ovens. He did it in the name of Germany, and by-and-large German people went along with the program. There were the Dietrich Bonhoeffers (who, incidentally, was killed in a concentration camp on this day in Flossenburg) who actively opposed Hitler. But they were in the minuscule minority. The bulk of Germany “followed orders” as soldiers, turned in Jews to authorities, and generally went along with the program.

Nowadays, when we talk about the guilt associated with that period of history, we understand Germany as a whole to be guilty of killing millions of Jews. We would even understand the German people to be complicit in murdering Bonhoeffer. The Germans recognize it too. Today, Germans grieve, confess, remember, and continue in their repentance of that horrific history.

I suspect no fair reader of this post would disagree about German complicity in the Holocaust. Well, in a post reflecting on the 50th anniversary of Dr. King’s assassination, no fair reader should have difficulty admitting the racism of the Civil Rights period and the complicity of white America in Jim Crow segregation and the murder of Dr. King. This was the point of the post and what I said. It should be admitted.

As I concluded in the post, we’re stuck until we can get at least that much honesty about at least that generation that pretty immediately proceeds our own.

On Talking Publicly

Before he gets to the substance of his critique, Dr. White takes a moment to lament the state of things in the Christian blogosphere and to review some of his conflicts with others. He’s attempting to explain how he even came to be involved in this exchange.

Dr. White says, “I learned a while ago, of course, that this is an explosive area, and you simply must enter into it fully prepared to be misread, de-contextualized, and otherwise pilloried, especially in social media.” He takes issue with others using terms like “hypocrisy” and the like.

I don’t have anything to do with any of that, and I’ll try to keep my comments here on things relevant to Dr. White and I. So, I’d just like to point out that Dr. White essentially does the very things he laments in others in this exchange with me. Tossing about charges of leftist European schools, Marxism, and the like is entirely beside the point. It’s a slander in its own right. It’s the kind of misreading, de-contextualizing, and attempts at pillorying that Dr. White decries if it’s aimed at him but in the next breath feels comfortable to do with others.

Yes, talking publicly about these things is difficult. Yes, there are trolls out there. Yes, there are those who willfully misrepresent you. But to fully learn the lesson Dr. White claims to have “learned a long time ago,” we have to not only learn them for ourselves when recipients of mistreatment but also learn not to do them to others.

Now on to the Issues Raised

Dr. White charges me with not “being overly careful in representing Wilson’s words, nor in evaluating, fairly and properly, Johnson’s citing of the article.” I understand the charge if all you have is that tweet and you’re jumping into an A + B conversation instead of C’ing your way out. I’d been tagged in a number of misrepresenting and further inflammatory statements from Mr. Johnson. So I replied in an admittedly snarky way, knowing full well that Mr. Johnson speaks snark fluently. The tweet is hyperbole. I have shared a conference platform with Mr. Johnson in Ocean City, New Jersey, about a decade ago. I know perfectly well that he’s capable of articulating the gospel of our Lord. I’m going to assume Dr. White’s press here results from jumping in mid-stream and perhaps not carefully observing the tone of things up to that point.

But for the sake of argument, let’s let Dr. White’s concern stand. So Mr. Wilson says racial reconciliation must start with forgiveness. I referred in error to “the gospel.” That’s my bad. I own that.

But it doesn’t change the point. Racial reconciliation does not start with forgiveness either. There’s no form of reconciliation that starts with forgiveness. All reconciliation—if it’s informed and true—begins with either the injured party declaring someone’s offense or with the confession and repentance by the guilty party. Try to get to forgiveness without admission the next time you offend or injure your spouse—especially when it’s the same offense they’ve been talking to you about for years! It doesn’t work. More importantly, Jesus teaches us this clearly in Matthew 5:23-26. The guy claiming to worship can’t go on worshiping at the altar when he remembers there’s a rift with a brother. He needs to leave his gift—the very gift that was being offered to God for forgiveness. He needs to reconcile. Agree to terms. Get things patched up by dealing with the facts of the offense, and so on, and then come back to the altar where forgiveness with God and man might be enjoyed in a clean conscience during worship.

Mr. Wilson’s post, Mr. Johnson’s commendation of it, and now Dr. White’s defense of it all make the same fatal flaw. They put forgiveness before reconciliation, which itself comes only after there’s admission. It’s cheap grace. It’s easy believism. And it’s a light healing of the wound of God’s people. It’s glory without suffering. It’s a crown without a cross. It is not the way of the cross and not the biblical teaching on how we get things fixed in any broken relationship.

Life Outside of ‘Race’ and Ethnicity

Dr. White adamantly asserts throughout the post that the recognition of “racial” or ethnic differences is essentially antithetical to the work of Christ on the cross in achieving a new humanity. He wants to maintain a priority on Christian unity by minimizing natural distinctions.

Dr. White claims I want to primarily maintain these distinctions. He describes my position and contrasts it with his own thus: “it is vital to his stance that we be very much aware, primarily aware, in fact, of the race of others, and, it seems, this is just as true in the church. I have often noted that I do not see color when I look upon fellow believers. I am not physically blind, but my sincere Christian experience is that I invoke (nor allow) any racial lens when interacting with my fellow believers.”

Yea, that’s rubbish. Both the claim that “race” is primary in my thinking about people as well as the claim that he does not see color. Yes, I push back against “color blindness” because the God who made us is not blind to color even though he doesn’t make the sinful associations we’ve made with it. I push back because as a trained psychologist I can tell you that’s just not how the mind works. But forget about psychology, the Bible tells us that’s just not how the mind works. That’s why it warns us repeatedly against judging others on improper bases. The mind is a ruthless stereotyper. And while it can and must be renewed, Dr. White claims for himself something that’s quite incredulous. It’s not surprising he has to admit that he misses things. Makes sense that attempting to view the world in ways other than it actually is leads you to miss things—like the way that paragraph slides from a denial of seeing color to not recognizing the ethnicity and culture of American Indians, Chinese, Africans, Asians, and so on because he “simply does not care.”

I think he admits here more than he means. He simply does not care. He simply does not care. That’s what I’ve been trying to point out. Your not caring about who people are as God made them may result in your not caring about how people are sometimes treated. Your blind spot is bigger than you can see.

I’m not interested in anyone making “race” a primary identifier for themselves and others. I quite agree with Dr. White about the supremacy and centrality of Christ in Christian self-understanding. However, I am maintaining that the unity in the church that Dr. White loves requires truth-telling at the precise places the unity is threatened. In this instance, truth-telling requires we remember we are embodied beings who have made sinful associations with that embodiment (skin color) that continue to harm and disrupt fellowship. That’s not making “race” primary; it’s inhabiting the world as it is and believing the deeds in the body matter as the Bible teaches. Dr. White participates in a delusion if he thinks ipso facto belief in the gospel magically causes all these things to essentially disappear. If that were true we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

And if that were true, Dr. White and others wouldn’t be arguing so vociferously to protect white people as such. The irony not to be missed is that Dr. White is insisting on all this color blindness and denial of ethnicity while being offended to the point of public debate on behalf of a racial group. He wants to maintain the integrity of white people as a people while denying the claims of black people to a real redress. That won’t do.

On Exegesis

This is getting too long. Let me simply say I think Dr. White, a very capable scholar, makes a hash of Colossians 4. That the national or ethnic distinctions are in the text is plain. To say someone is “one of you,” meaning a Colossian, is to identify that person with that group in a way that distinguishes him from other groups. To say someone is “of the circumcision” can only be understood to refer to the religio-ethnic-cultural identity of Jews. It’s the distinguishing mark of the covenant that separated them from all Gentiles for crying out loud. The class distinction with Onesimus simply requires a little analogy of faith. Here, I think Dr. White simply wants to maintain an a priori interpretive commitment that requires zero distinctions in the body of Christ contrary to the evidence for such distinctions available since at least Acts 6 where Hellenist and Hebrew widows posed the first question of inclusion for the early church.

As far as Titus 1 goes, I think Dr. White simply misunderstands what I’m attempting to do there. He characterizes it as me trying to use that text “to bring ethnicity into the church.” To be fair, God brings ethnicity into the church. But I cite the text as biblical evidence for someone speaking of an entire people’s sins and doing so sharply. One of the chief complaints against my original post is that I’ve spoken of an entire “racial group” in a way that’s contrary to the gospel and scripture. In citing Titus 1, I simply wished to note that if I’m wrong, I’m the same kind of wrong as the apostle Paul when he speaks of Cretans—a national and ethnic people group—in collective terms in relationship to their characteristic sins. About this, for other examples, I would actually commend Doug Wilson’s post to Dr. White for consideration.

Finally . . . Something That’s Implicit That Should Be Made Explicit

Dr. White and I have omitted an important step in public discourse, at least discourse among professing brothers. We have not agreed upon the terms of the debate. What are we arguing, how are we arguing, who will set and enforce the rules?

His post is filled with things he insists on. Things that must be this way or that. And conveniently, he always insists in directions consistent with his opinion. In other words, he’s trying to rig the conversation in his favor. I simply reject that—not as a matter of pride and inflexibility, but as a matter of righteousness and justice. I’m sure Dr. White won’t like this, and many who take his view of things won’t like this. But you simply do not get to unilaterally set the terms of the discussion when you’ve chosen to represent the “side” of those who have committed the historical wrong over against the “side” of those who have suffered the wrong. It’s doubling the infraction. It’s like allowing (forgive the analogy) an abusive husband to set the terms of counseling and reconciliation with his battered wife. No good pastor would do that because he knows that’s simply to extend the abuse. I do apologize for using what will certainly feel like an emotionally loaded analogy to some people. I’m simply illustrating the dynamic in this that I reject.

If we want to talk further and to give the “sides” an opportunity to be heard justly, we’re going to need to parlay about how we talk before we get around to the talking, especially if we feel ourselves so convinced of our view that we tend to write and speak as if no other opinion can be “biblical” or “true.” Perhaps readers can blame us both for writing that way. All the more reason to set the terms of discussion before the discussion.

]]>https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/can-no-reconciliation-no-truth-telling-first/feed/0The Racialist Lens Disrupts True Christian Unity: A Response to Thabiti Anyabwilehttps://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/racialist-lens-disrupts-true-christian-unity-response-thabiti-anyabwile/
Tue, 10 Apr 2018 02:10:47 +0000http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/?post_type=thabiti-anyabwile&p=123264Note: This post was originally published at Dr. James White’s Alpha & Omega Ministries website. I repost it here with his permission and without any editing. I had some difficulty retaining the format of the original when it came to things like embedded tweets and block quotes. I do hope that does not interfere with reading and understanding. —————————————————- Thabiti Anyabwile is a council member of The Gospel Coalition (TGC) and the pastor of Anacostia River Church in Washington, D.C. Over the years we have spoken occasionally at the same conferences, often because of my ministry relating to Islam, and...]]>

Note: This post was originally published at Dr. James White’s Alpha & Omega Ministries website. I repost it here with his permission and without any editing. I had some difficulty retaining the format of the original when it came to things like embedded tweets and block quotes. I do hope that does not interfere with reading and understanding.

—————————————————-

Thabiti Anyabwile is a council member of The Gospel Coalition (TGC) and the pastor of Anacostia River Church in Washington, D.C. Over the years we have spoken occasionally at the same conferences, often because of my ministry relating to Islam, and his brief foray into Islam and subsequent exit from that religion. I recall speaking at a conference with him nearly a decade ago, I believe, in Toronto.

Concurrently with the MLK50 Conference, primarily (but not solely) put on by TGC, Pastor Anyabwile posted an article on his blog on the TGC website titled, “We Await Repentance for Assassinating Dr. King” (April 4, 2018) (found here: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/await-repentance-assassinating-dr-king/). In the article, Thabiti reminded us that MLK was “assassinated, murdered, violently killed,” and that he did not just “die.” As he wrote, “The Civil Rights leaders standing on the balcony on that dark day pointed not only to Ray and the area where the shot was fired, but figuratively pointed to the entire country in its sinister hatred and racism.” He then made the case that the country as a whole is guilty, for he writes, “Until and unless there is repentance of this animus and murderous hatred, the country will remain imprisoned to a seared conscience.” He then adds “the Church” to the list, though he does not chart the path as to exactly how all of this can be processed consistently (since, of course, many in the country were only tangentially aware of, or concerned about, MLK and related matters). But then he added this short paragraph, which garnered a great deal of attention:

My white neighbors and Christian brethren can start by at least saying their parents and grandparents and this country are complicit in murdering a man who only preached love and justice.

I am not the only one to point out that the complex knot of associations, groups, and individuals, thrown into this single sentence is next to impossible to disentangle. When you say someone was complicit in murder, you should have a very clear and identifiable mechanism of establishing said guilt, and given the broad net he throws, the assertion itself provides more than sufficient self-refutation. But the paragraph brought a great deal of response, which may well provide the background to Pastor Anyabwile’s comment that sparked my own reply.

The Background

Before addressing that, let me note some of my own context as to why I took a few moments to respond to Thabiti’s tweet to Phil Johnson of Grace To You. While this “field” of discussion is not anywhere near my central focus at this point in my life (I am currently very deeply involved in New Testament textual critical studies, specifically on the interface of the new CBGM methodology and the early papyri), I have commented on matters more than once in the past as issues in culture and the church brought opportunity to do so, always with the hope of edification. I learned a while ago, of course, that this is an explosive area, and you simply must enter into it fully prepared to be misread, de-contextualized, and otherwise pilloried, especially in social media. Over the past couple of weeks on my webcast, The Dividing Line, I have taken time to address a few issues related to the unity of the Church and the topic of racialism. I have walked through Colossians 3 and argued that within the fellowship of faith the singular lens by which we are to view each other is found in our common redemption, our common faith, our common indwelling Spirit, and the common renewal that is being worked out in us whereby we are being conformed to the image of Christ. I argue that the Apostle specifically and clearly denies that there are any distinctions in this renewal based upon one’s history, one’s ethnicity, or social standing. The unity of the body is found not in the noting and prioritizing of such things, but in recognizing that in light of the redemptive work of Christ, those distinctions are no more. “In this renewing work there is no Greek and no Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, slave, freeman, but Christ is all, and in all” (v. 11). The phrase “but Christ is all” should not be overlooked. There is something utterly unique in the Christian faith found in the uniqueness of the God-man, in the Incarnate One, Jesus. The reason “every tribe, tongue, people and nation” can be one is that they are focused not upon themselves but upon another, Jesus. I assert that this means that my relationship with each and every true believer in Christ must, by nature of who Jesus is and what He did, transcend and eclipse any other human relationship, and that includes ethnicity, history or skin color. Individuals who once hated every member of another ethnic group (and the history of this in the world is long, and nowhere limited to any particular spectrum of human skin color) can come to the Lord’s table with those they once hated without hesitation because all of those hatreds and hurts are in the past and are rendered irrelevant by the “new man.” Both are being renewed and made that “new man,” so everything that has come before must be buried at the foot of the cross. When this reality is ignored the peace-making capacity of Christian fellowship worldwide is sacrificed.

I likewise had to deal with the blatant attempt to slander and delegitimize me launched by one of the participants at the MLK50 Conference, Kyle J. Howard. In a Facebook comment Mr. Howard had indicated that he, as a black man, would not feel “safe” with me alone in a room. This kind of rhetoric has no place in the Christian church, but given the inroads that have been made in many sectors of the church by ideologies born not in the Scriptures but in the leftist schools of Europe and in the writings of Marx, many “resonated” with Howard’s unfounded accusation and came to his defense. So, if you are slandered in this fashion without foundation and without evidence, you are still “guilty” of having “micro-aggressed” someone. This kind of activity comes straight out of the play book of the political left, and is experiencing sad, but real, success within the confessing faith.

It seemed, in fact, that a switch had been thrown over the weekend with the MLK50 event, for many of its participants and advocates came out of the event firing on all cylinders. Pastor Dwight McKissic used terms such as “hypocrisy” “inconsistency” and asserted a lack of “integrity and honesty” on my part as well, all within a very short exchange on social media. A number commented that they were “done” having anything to do with what I guess would be called the “non-woke church.”

So in the midst of all of this I saw a comment from Thabiti Anyabwile directed to Phil Johnson, President of Grace To You. Phil had dared (and in the current context, admitting you have ever met, conversed with, or done anything other than thrown a shoe at, Doug Wilson takes daring) to link to Wilson’s blog article addressing many of these issues, posted on April 2nd, titled “Evangeliguilt.” It can be found here: https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/evangeliguilt.html. Thabiti responded to Phil in these words:

“Oh, now I see the problem. You don’t understand the gospel. This post says the gospel begins with “no condemnation.” Actually, the first command of the gospel is “repent.” But that’s precisely what you have difficulty with so I see why you’d like this post.”

I am uncertain if Thabiti has spoken at a conference with Phil Johnson, but I simply have to point out how bold this kind of rhetoric is. It is one thing to say, “I do not believe you are applying gospel principles consistently here” or the like, but to directly assert that Pastor Johnson does not understand the gospel? And what is more, the assertion is factually incorrect as it stands: the post by Wilson does not, in fact, say the gospel begins with “no condemnation.” Here is the only relevant portion:

If you want racial reconciliation, you have to start with forgiveness. Forgiveness is not the pinnacle we appointed to climb. Forgiveness has to be the foundation we build from. If you want men and women to reconcile their long grievances with each other, you have to begin with forgiveness, you have to start with pardon. The very first step is the no condemnation stage.

So it does not seem Thabiti was being overly careful either in representing Wilson’s words, nor in evaluating, fairly and properly, Johnson’s citing of the article. In any case, I chose to respond to Thabiti’s statement. Here are the tweets, as Thabiti reposted them:

First, the post nowhere says “the gospel begins with no condemnation.” It says the first step in reconciling men and women is “the no condemnation stage.” In context, then, obviously, the issue is inside the church, between Christians, not about conversion.

— James White (@DrOakley1689) April 8, 2018

Secondly, the biblical teaching on Christian unity, laid out in Colossians 3, says we as believers experience a renewal “in which there is no Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, slave, freeman…. Instead, “Christ is all, and in all.” (10-11).

— James White (@DrOakley1689) April 8, 2018

Very specifically the Apostle denies the the renewal that makes for the unity of the body of Christ allows distinctions—historical, genetic, ritual, ETHNIC, or cultural. To force a lens that places such distinctions in the forefront of our interactions in the body is error.

— James White (@DrOakley1689) April 8, 2018

The willingness to speak of any skin tone, whether white, brown, black or blue, so that you can create a generic bucket of humanity that makes no proper distinctions and attempts to divide and assign guilt along such lines is not only foolish, it is dangerous.

— James White (@DrOakley1689) April 8, 2018

But for the Christian, assigning such distinctions in the body is straight up *opposed to Apostolic teaching and practice.* The reason the church can exist amongst all tribes, tongues, peoples and nations is that the gospel puts us all in the SAME bucket: the redeemed.

— James White (@DrOakley1689) April 8, 2018

So please, Thabiti, consider well the path your recent articles charts, and consider as well telling someone such as PJ that he does not understand the gospel. Argue application if you wish—but what I am seeing after MLK50 finds its origins much more in Marx than Mark.

— James White (@DrOakley1689) April 8, 2018

Pastor Anyabwile begins his article stating, “I want to offer a brief treatment of how New Testament authors do, in fact, talk about ‘race,’ ethnicity, skin color, and even the cultural sins of entire groups of people.” But here’s my problem from the start: I never said the New Testament authors glibly ignored the existence of ethnicity, skin color, or cultural sins (I did not list “race” since there is, in their minds, one race, the human race, and the modern perversion of that concept into racialism is not consonant with their worldview). I did say that the basis of Christian unity is found in the eclipsing of these things by the over-riding unity that the renewal of the Spirit brings about in our lives, a renewal in which there are no distinctions. I can only assume that Thabiti’s conclusion, that being that “White Americans” are the equivalent of the Cretans of Paul’s age, is meant to substantiate his accusation against Phil Johnson, though both require quite a massive stretch of the imagination.

I would like to respond to just a few of the items Pastor Anyabwile raised. He begins by noting the future, eschatological unity of God’s people, which while true, is meant to direct us to the current, realized unity of the body outside of cultural and ethnic categories. Then he notes that the New Testament “speaks of the church’s missions in terms of ethnicity-specific strategy.” He refers here to the recognition of Peter as the apostle to the Jews and Paul the apostle to the Gentiles. Of course, these distinctions already existed and, of course, it is this very distinction that Paul is at pains to point out is ended in Christ, the middle wall of partition torn down. Indeed, I would say it is very much central to Paul’s theology that he fought against the great danger of a Jewish Christian church existing separately from a Gentile Christian church. His emphasis is upon the unity of the two, even in recognizing the need to reach out to all.

But it is important to note part of Pastor Anyabwile’s polemic here: it is opposed to “racial blindness.” That is, it is vital to his stance that we be very much aware, primarily aware, in fact, of the race of others, and, it seems, this is just as true in the church. I have often noted that I do not see color when I look upon fellow believers. I am not physically blind, but my sincere Christian experience is that I neither invoke, nor allow, any racial lens when interacting with my fellow believers. This will, at times, result in my missing something. For example, a great friend of mine that I have known for years has an American Indian heritage, and yes, you can see that when you look at him. But I had honestly not thought about it for many decades now, and it just doesn’t define my thinking of him. He is who he is. Whether Chinese or Vietnamese or African or Hispanic or Latvian or Norwegian—I simply do not care. It is not definitional of how we relate in the body of Christ. This is why I can preach and teach and minister in South Africa, or Ukraine, or anywhere else, and not give the matter a second thought. When I speak to young men after a class in Kiev or after a church service in Johannesburg, how much melanin they carry in their skins matters not the least to me. Do they love the Lord? Seek to obey His word? Trust in His goodness? What else is needed? We are fellow redeemed sinners, we are indwelt by the same Spirit, we have the same calling and hope. Period. End of discussion. Well, not today. The discussion, seemingly, has no end. And the “racial lens” is a major priority. So Thabiti can conclude one section by saying, “Whatever we say about the apostle, we cannot say he is ‘blind’ to these things as some say.” He was, in fact, “blind” to these things in the church and in relationship to the oneness we must have in Christ. Pointing out that there are practical ramifications for ministering the gospel in the context of the Jews over against, say, pagan Gentiles in a far away land is not overly relevant to the actual topic, since, of course, once God grants salvation to those pagan Gentiles they are no longer pagan Gentiles but fellow heirs and members of the body, and their past “paganism” is no longer to be taken into consideration. Nor, in fact, do we have any basis for saying they should regularly be called to repent for the evils their pagan ancestors inflicted upon others.

We then move into more important exegetical territory as Pastor Anyabwile begins to discuss the ecclesiastical distinctions he believes the New Testament makes. He argues that the distinctions Paul mentions in Colossians 3:10-11 do not “cease to exist” for “in the parallel passage the apostle says there’s ‘neither male nor female’ (Gal. 3:28) and Dr. White would be the first to point to the enduring reality of sex or gender and the maintenance of those reality in our present culture.” In actuality, a few Greek manuscripts, translations, and a few early writers, inserted “male and female” prior to “Greek and Jew” in verse 11, based upon the parallel in Gal. 3:28. But again, it is not a matter of these distinctions not existing but how they do not exist in reference to the renewing work of God in creating the one new man that is the basis for Christian fellowship and unity. Furthermore, the male/female distinction is part of God’s good gift to mankind, and is vital to the very definition of humanity and its continuance. Is skin color or ethnicity being placed on the same level as this basic category by Pastor Anyabwile? I certainly hope not!

But I found the rest of Pastor Anyabwile’s comments in this section troubling. Let’s note his words:

But, of course, these egalitarian passages that describe our essential unity and (sic) Christ and equality through our union with him are not the only passages in which the apostle specifically identifies “race” or ethnicity. Let’s just stick with Colossians since that’s the text Dr. White chose. Read on into Colossians 4 and will see Paul noting the ethnic or racial backgrounds of a good number of people he greets. He points out who among them are Colossians, laments that he only has three Jewish laborers with him, and even points out whose (sic) a slave (Onesimus) on his team. Check out Colossians 4:7-17. So whatever Paul means by Col. 3:11 and Gal. 3:28, he does not mean we end up in a color-blind and race-blind and class-blind status in the Church. Indeed, when it serves his apostolic aims for equity, inclusion, affirmation, etc., Paul intentionally mentions those things.

I would invite the reader to look carefully at the referenced texts in Colossians 4. To read into them even a hint of “race” or “ethnicity” is to me very troubling. For example, in verses 7-17 we first meet Tychicus. No reference to race or ethnicity, only that he is a brother and faithful servant and fellow bond-servant of the Lord. Next we have Onesimus. Assuming this is the Onesimus of the book of Philemon, then whether he was a slave, or a freedman (depending on the chronology of the writings and the actions taken by Philemon), Paul makes no reference to either. His former standing is not mentioned, only that he is a faithful and beloved brother from Colossae. Then in verse 11 we have the reference to “these fellow workers for the kingdom of God are the only ones who are from the circumcision.” And what is this other than an observation? Is anything at all said about this making them different, or that we should consider their backgrounds or call upon them to repent for the sins of their people in persecuting Paul or anything even remotely like this? It is simply said that they were a great encouragement to the apostle, nothing else. Pastor Anyabwile is going to conclude this article by stating that “the New Testament is actually a pretty ethnicity- or race-conscious collection of writings.” It is very, very hard to avoid pointing out that this conclusion is not substantiated by the passages cited, nor by the argumentation included, and that by a long shot. Surely this passing reference to Col. 4:7-17 in no way grounds his argument, “So whatever Paul means by Col. 3:11 and Gal. 3:28, he does not mean we end up in a color-blind and race-blind and class-blind status in the Church. Indeed, when it serves his apostolic aims for equity, inclusion, affirmation, etc., Paul intentionally mentions those things.” Paul did not “intentionally mention” any of these things in this text outside of mere identification. Nothing in this text is even slightly relevant to Christian fellowship, unity, or anything else. If anything, the constant repetition of the idea of fellow workers, etc., shows the lack of distinctions, just as one would expect from chapter 3. We must surely see the influence of an outside source in such comments, an over-riding commitment to a viewpoint or theme that is not being derived from exegetical concerns.

The fourth category that Pastor Anyabwile brings up is “Hamartiological.” Now I remind the reader, we have strayed a long way from the original context of an accusation that Phil Johnson does not understand the gospel. I can only imagine that Thabiti believes these various categories are in some fashion supportive of the over-all narrative that is therefore important in establishing why he would say what he did to Phil. In any case, my statement in my tweets had been to assert that in the Church the very distinctions he is very insistent upon trying to find have been done away with in Christ and that creating “bucket” groups you can throw everyone into and then demand of them certain attitudes and actions is inappropriate. So Anyabwile writes,

Finally, and this is where our disagreement is sharpest, the New Testament does indeed sweepingly speak of ethnic, national or “racial” groups and their shared guilt and need due to sin.

But as we will see, it does not speak of such things within the fellowship of the saints, which is the point of this entire exchange. Now, he then states, “Again, we’re keeping with the New Testament, which is good because the Old Testament examples are legion.” Please catch that statement: why would such statements be “legion” in the Old Testament? Because, of course, the OT is dealing with national Israel, a mixed covenant, land promises, the coming Messiah, and all sorts of other threads and issues that are part of what has been fulfilled but not a part of the ongoing mission of the one body that is being formed by the work of the Spirit. Keep the proverbial eye on the ball here, for the example that Thabiti has chosen as the ground and basis of his argument is truly startling. Remember, my foundation has been the exegesis of an entire passage of Scripture that is specifically and directly on the topic at hand. Where do we go to ground this final plank of Thabiti’s argument?

Consider Titus 1. The same apostle Dr. White evokes in support of his color-blind/race-blind ethic, speaks pretty bitingly about the Cretans.

So rather than going to a concomitant passage that would didactically speak to the issue, here we have a reference to a text wherein Paul is speaking to Titus about the difficulties he will face in founding and guiding the church on Crete. Let’s consider it in context and keep in mind one question: is this text even intending, in passing, to address the topic of the relationship of people of different ethnicities or, in our modern situation, of different skin colors, in the church? Paul had just laid out qualifications for the elders of the church, which included the ability to “exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict” (v. 9). Why is this so important in Titus’ context?

For there are many insubordinate men, empty babblers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision. It is necessary to silence them, for they are overthrowing entire homes, teachings things they should not teach simply for shameful gain. One of their own, one of their own prophets, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” This testimony is true. This is why it is necessary to reprove them strongly so that they may be sound in the faith, not giving heed to Jewish myths and commandments of men who turn away from the truth. (10-14)

Now obviously the point of this text is to warn Titus of the challenges he will face from false teachers who try to sneak into the church. This is why he needs to make sure the elders he chooses are firm in the faith and in sound doctrine having the ability to refute falsehoods! But is it not just as clear that it is a wildly inappropriate text to try to drag into a discussion of ethnicities in the church? That is not what Paul is discussing at all! He is simply acknowledging a propensity on the populace’s part that might lead them to “giving heed to Jewish myths and commandments of men who turn away from the truth.” There is nothing about skin colors or privileges or anything even remotely connected thereto. Thabiti makes a massively unwarranted leap from Paul’s citation of Epimenides (the quotation given above) to the idea that we should not be upset with him! If Paul could speak harshly, can’t he? Is this really the argument being presented? It is hard to believe, but yes, it is. I simply must conclude that in points three and four Pastor Anyabwile has completely failed in his self-appointed task to find any kind of counter-argument to the foundational unity passage I have presented from Colossians 3.

So we are truly left without reason to accept his conclusion, “So, you see, the New Testament is actually a pretty ethnicity- or race-conscious collection of writings.” Whatever Thabiti might think that means, what it does not mean is that the New Testament presents a “woke-church” with a lens of racial prioritizing and historical guilt-mongering as its primary focus. He goes on to say, “The biggest wrong is minimizing or denying that racism exists or assigning meaning and emphasis to ‘race’ where the Bible does not. I contend that’s what Dr. White has done, not me.” I wish I could respond to this statement, but it stands alone, without previous definition or explanation. I believe racism exists. It is part of the sinful heart of man. There is racism amongst Arabs. Racism amongst Asians. Racism exists inside bodies covered in every shade of skin. There is racism in the hearts of light colored men, and racism in the hearts of very dark colored men. Racism ignores that God has made us all in His image. Thankfully, in the body of Christ, we are reconciled to God, and to each other, and our primary orientation is no longer ethnic but eschatological. That new man looks forward to the consummation of all things, not backwards to sources of hurt and animus between ethnic groups. This is why, again, the Christian church can bring peace in the most horrific of human conflicts. But that all ends when we import the lens of “race” into the body.

Yes to Identity!

This is why I have stood against this “woke” movement and its unbiblical attempt to insert a lens the Apostles nowhere demanded. It is the very radical nature of the body of the elect that gives such power of healing and peace to the Christian church. One body made up of many parts, chosen freely and beautifully in God’s sovereignty, the past forgiven, the future certain in Christ, the present the on-going renewal in which the distinctions that divide men and cultures and nations are done away with, for Christ is all, and in all.

We hear much about “identity politics” today. Christianity beat the movement to that concept by many centuries. Our identity is not ours to choose, however. Our identity is not determined by our genetics or our economic status. No, the Christian message about identity is an easy one: Christ is all and in all. He is our identity. His sacrifice redeems us, His intercession assures us, and as we live in recognition of His centrality in all things, the human-derived divisions that plague all of mankind are put aside. We come to one table, as one people, and the only lens we need for that is the one that shows us the Lord of glory, Jesus.

]]>Dear Douglashttps://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/dear-douglas/
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/dear-douglas/#respondMon, 09 Apr 2018 19:42:59 +0000http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/?post_type=thabiti-anyabwile&p=123204Thank you for yours dated Monday, April 9. I appreciate the tone and content of most of what you’ve written. It may surprise you, or perhaps many onlookers to this exchange, that I very nearly agree with you at every point. You actually make a stronger case for a people’s complicity in inter-generational sin than I do! Thank you. I would agree with you at every point were my post a sermon. But it was not. So I felt no obligation to “get to the cross” in those posts as I do in preaching. Indeed, contrary to what many have...]]>

Thank you for yours dated Monday, April 9. I appreciate the tone and content of most of what you’ve written. It may surprise you, or perhaps many onlookers to this exchange, that I very nearly agree with you at every point. You actually make a stronger case for a people’s complicity in inter-generational sin than I do! Thank you.

I would agree with you at every point were my post a sermon. But it was not. So I felt no obligation to “get to the cross” in those posts as I do in preaching.

Indeed, contrary to what many have falsely exclaimed, I make it a discipline as best I’m able to preach the gospel of our Lord in every sermon. This is a requirement in the pulpit I have the privilege of leading. It’s what I do at public events—like Prison Fellowship’s event this past Saturday in support of people returning to the community from prison. Even at pastors’ conferences where the overwhelming majority of attendees are thought to be Christians, I not only typically preach the facts of the gospel but try also to articulate the blessed benefits of the gospel and call people to repentance and faith as if there might just be one person in the room not yet a believer or one person there deceiving themselves.

I am, and hope to be until I die or Christ returns, a gospel preacher.

The Gospel in Every Post, Though?

But the posts you cite are not as you point out gospel preachments. I don’t feel obligated to include a discussion of the gospel in every blog post. I’m sure you can appreciate that, since including the gospel in every post or assuaging the consciences of readers with the gospel is not your practice either. I’ve read quite a number of rhetorical thrusts from your keyboard that lacked the gospel grace you so beautifully describe in your post. In fact, I’ve read quite a few things from your pen that seemed to me to lack any grace at all. You’ve defended having a “serrated edge” to your writing as a necessary thing when dealing with certain groups of people you find recalcitrant.

So, I wonder why you’ve taken such offense when I have spoken plainly and perhaps without grace about the sins of a time past and a people obdurate in the face of the Scripture and sound rebuke. It seems rather inconsistent of you. Moreover, in those posts where you too do not expound the gospel, you fail to show the very gospel urgency you insist on here. Must we only get to forgiveness now and tonight when the charge is racism but we’re fine to leave it off when blasting other sins?

Cheap Grace?

Perhaps you and I disagree about what should be front-loaded in racial reconciliation exchanges. You have called for the pronouncement of “no condemnation” and here call for a swift move to that only solution to man’s sins—the Person and work of Jesus Christ.

What I think you fail to comprehend is that the debate isn’t really about the gospel. It’s about whether truth is necessary for reconciliation and whether that truth-telling must come first. I think it is and it must.

You seem to envision a gospel that produces freedom without first requiring we tell the truth about our sins and repent of them. You seem to envision a Christian life unlike Luther’s wherein the Reformer understands that when Christ called us to repent he meant that we should keep on repenting.

It’s curious that you should hasten to the freedom the gospel gives after admitting in both biblical and historical example the complicity of which I spoke. If we agree about such complicity, how can it be wrong to point it out and to call for acknowledgement of it? If we agree about such complicity, how can we move so rapidly to the benefits of atonement while so many people around us at this very moment are decrying any charge of complicity itself?

You see, good gospel preaching still does what the ancients called “a good Law work.” Unless the thunders of Sinai frighten and awaken, men will not see the beauty of Calvary. The gospel first condemns us—you are guilty and need to repent—before it heals us. The effect of your post is to heal the wound lightly and to offer what I fear is a cheap grace rather than that grace that teaches us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions and to pursue godliness, self-control, and uprightness (Titus 2:11ff). I asked people to say “No” to the ungodliness so well documented and you seem to want to say, “Yeah, but don’t worry about it very much.”

If any of what I say here is true, that, Douglas, is cheap grace.

Insinuations and White People

Now about the insinuation that I am somehow profiting off “white guilt,” it might be helpful if you substantiated your charge or perhaps clarify what you mean. As far as I can tell, I’ve faced a range of reactions from disagreement to open hostility for pointing out what I think was the characteristic sin of white Americans, including Christians, in the 1950-’60s and calling people today to admit it was true. I’m unaware of any profit of any sort. I certainly don’t write these things for popularity, just as I don’t think you write about hard things (say, homosexuality) expecting the universal applause of man or to exploit some guilt somewhere. I’m no martyr, and I don’t feel particularly courageous. But as best I know my own heart, I’m not after the light plaudits of people you describe as suffering from “evangeliguilt.”

Speaking of which, how is it that you can speak in such sweeping terms about a whole class of currently living people (white people, at that) to charge them with a weakness largely debatable and it be okay, but I cannot speak of a class of mostly deceased people whose records of sin are public and available to all without people being offended? Or, why can you (in my opinion, rightly) point to the cultural sins of African Americans or Americans in general and it be an exercise in truth-telling without prejudice, but my doing that is tantamount to abandoning the gospel, Marxism, and a host of other things? That’s at least inconsistent and quite possibly hypocrisy.

But in all of it, I think your opinions of white people are lower than mine. I believe the Spirit and grace of God can lead to genuine repentance and the conscience mercifully pricked can lead to tremendous fruit and grace. However, you seem to cast it all as white pandering. I think that’s beneath the people you criticize who, for the most part, are not “around me” but largely unknown to me. They’re onlookers on social media who have no reason to lie and no reward to gain by admitting their own faults and failures. If you knew me and the white people around me with whom I have these conversations you would not for a moment reach the unrighteous judgment you doled out in that post.

Conclusion

I don’t intend to have a back-and-forth with you at the length of our exchange on Black and Tan. This post will pretty much be my only response.

But let me sign off with this: It is not the mere articulation of the gospel in blog posts or the mere proclamation of the gospel in sermons that works the kind of new covenant and coming kingdom realities we hope to see in the world. Gospel preaching and writing are necessary, but they are not sufficient. We’ve had centuries of that “gospel preaching” that makes much of the cross and Christ while making light of sins the apostle defines as “contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the gospel” (1 Tim. 1). That “gospel preaching” has left us segregated churches with hardly a conscience bothered. That “gospel preaching” has been comfortable with the ownership of slaves while risking life and liberty against the British. That “gospel preaching” has made a fuss about seeing Jesus in heaven while allowing people to live like the Devil. And the heirs of that “gospel preaching” call on everyone to “just preach the gospel” perhaps because they instinctively know that kind of “gospel preaching” won’t cost them anything and they can go right on enjoying the complicity (whether abortion, Jim Crow, whatever).

We have had enough of that “gospel preaching” that will not confront a person or a people in their sin. It’s the “gospel preaching” of false prophets and the unrepentant religious. That kind of preaching is what prompted our holy God, who begins his judgment with his own household, to say long ago:

14 They have healed the wound of my people lightly,saying, ‘Peace, peace,’when there is no peace.15 Were they ashamed when they committed abomination?No, they were not at all ashamed;they did not know how to blush.Therefore they shall fall among those who fall;at the time that I punish them, they shall be overthrown,”says the LORD.

16 Thus says the LORD:“Stand by the roads, and look,and ask for the ancient paths,where the good way is; and walk in it,and find rest for your souls.But they said, ‘We will not walk in it.’17 I set watchmen over you, saying,‘Pay attention to the sound of the trumpet!’But they said, ‘We will not pay attention.’18 Therefore hear, O nations,and know, O congregation, what will happen to them.19 Hear, O earth; behold, I am bringing disaster upon this people,the fruit of their devices,because they have not paid attention to my words;and as for my law, they have rejected it.20 What use to me is frankincense that comes from Sheba,or sweet cane from a distant land?Your burnt offerings are not acceptable,nor your sacrifices pleasing to me.21 Therefore thus says the LORD:‘Behold, I will lay before this peoplestumbling blocks against which they shall stumble;fathers and sons together,neighbor and friend shall perish.’” (Jer. 6:14-21)

]]>https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/dear-douglas/feed/0‘Race’ and Racism Pre-Date Karl Marxhttps://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/race-racism-pre-date-karl-marx/
Mon, 09 Apr 2018 10:12:51 +0000http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/?post_type=thabiti-anyabwile&p=122998It’s become fashionable for some people to toss about the charge of “Marxism” or “Neo-Marxism” any time “race” and racism are a topic of discussion. Is that a historically accurate thing to do?]]>

It’s become fashionable for some people to toss about the charge of “Marxism” or “Neo-Marxism” any time “race” and racism are a topic of discussion. It’s become one of those red meat mantras that rally a base and shut down a conversation.

For a long time I’ve just let the phrase and its variants go. But it seems like it’s not dying, and no one seems to be producing any actual writing or research to substantiate the term. If it’s going to be around we should at least put things in their proper order: first came the ideas of “race” and the reality of racism and much, much later comes Karl Marx and any of his heirs.

Marx was born in 1818. That means the earliest possible date on which we could refer to someone as a “Marxist” would be May 5 of that year. Of course, that would mean Marxism began in the delivery room of his birth. But I’m being generous here. Let’s use that earliest possible date to get our timelines right and agree that “neo-Marxism” would be later (the 20th century actually).

Now, when do we get the false construct of biological “races,” and when does racism appear on the scene of world history?

Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (1752-1840) divided the single human family (biblically speaking; see Gen. 3:21, for example) into five “races” in 1779. His categorization of the five “races” roughly corresponds to how people think of racial groups today.

We could go back a century prior to Blumenbach to German scientist Bernhard Varen (1622-1650) and English scientist John Ray (1627-1705). Where Blumenbach used human skulls to classify the “races,” Varen and Ray used stature, shape, food habits, and skin color.

Of course, we could go back further in time to Italian philosopher Giardano Bruno (1548-1600) and French philosopher Jean Bodin (1530-1596). They tried to classify humanity into “races” using skin color and geography.

We could go back further still for “race” and racist ideas. The Babylonian Talmud gives us the old curse of Ham myth.

So with little more than a Wikipedia entry, we can trace ideas of “race” and racism back to the Middle Ages—well before Karl Marx, Marxism, neo-Marxism, or Gramscian Marxism that come along in the 1800 and 1900s.

It’s not that Marxist thought isn’t anywhere to be found in racial discourse. I think it is. Of course, some people are self-consciously Marxist. But most people writing blogs and engaging the subject either are unaware of Marxist influence or are quite aware of having very different influences on their thought. Tossing about the label does nothing for understanding the person you’re engaging or improving the discourse. And, in a good many instances, tossing about the labels is simply anachronistic.

Let me say one final thing about all this Marxist stuff. Hardly anyone is without some Marxist influence in their lives. The next time you talk about economic classes (say, the “middle class” being under attack) be sure to tip your hat toward good ol’ Mr. Marx. Or the next time you’re tempted to accuse others of being emotional when it comes to “race” and racism, you might suspect that something of Marx’s dialectical method is at work in your appeal to objectivity and reasoned discourse. If we’re feeling cheeky, we might say, “It takes a Marxist to know a Marxist.” Or we might just talk to each other on our own terms. I’m for the second, especially since our problems with “race” and racism were around a long, long time before Mr. Marx and his heirs.

]]>Four Ways the New Testament Identifies Ethnicity in the Churchhttps://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/four-ways-new-testament-identifies-ethnicity-church/
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/four-ways-new-testament-identifies-ethnicity-church/#respondSun, 08 Apr 2018 12:33:23 +0000http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/?post_type=thabiti-anyabwile&p=123024Apologist Dr. James White of The Dividing Line left me a string of tweets this weekend regarding his view of a “race”- or ethnicity-blind new covenant reality in the church. For context, Dr. White replies to a snarky reply I posted to a snarky comment from Phil Johnson wherein I say Phil doesn’t understand the gospel. So as to represent Dr. White correctly, I post his tweets to me in total here: First, the post nowhere says “the gospel begins with no condemnation.” It says the first step in reconciling men and women is “the no condemnation stage.” In context,...]]>

Apologist Dr. James White of The Dividing Line left me a string of tweets this weekend regarding his view of a “race”- or ethnicity-blind new covenant reality in the church. For context, Dr. White replies to a snarky reply I posted to a snarky comment from Phil Johnson wherein I say Phil doesn’t understand the gospel. So as to represent Dr. White correctly, I post his tweets to me in total here:

First, the post nowhere says “the gospel begins with no condemnation.” It says the first step in reconciling men and women is “the no condemnation stage.” In context, then, obviously, the issue is inside the church, between Christians, not about conversion.

Secondly, the biblical teaching on Christian unity, laid out in Colossians 3, says we as believers experience a renewal “in which there is no Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, slave, freeman…. Instead, “Christ is all, and in all.” (10-11).

Very specifically the Apostle denies the the renewal that makes for the unity of the body of Christ allows distinctions—historical, genetic, ritual, ETHNIC, or cultural. To force a lens that places such distinctions in the forefront of our interactions in the body is error.

The willingness to speak of any skin tone, whether white, brown, black or blue, so that you can create a generic bucket of humanity that makes no proper distinctions and attempts to divide and assign guilt along such lines is not only foolish, it is dangerous.

But for the Christian, assigning such distinctions in the body is straight up *opposed to Apostolic teaching and practice.* The reason the church can exist amongst all tribes, tongues, peoples and nations is that the gospel puts us all in the SAME bucket: the redeemed.

So please, Thabiti, consider well the path your recent articles charts, and consider as well telling someone such as PJ that he does not understand the gospel. Argue application if you wish—but what I am seeing after MLK50 finds its origins much more in Marx than Mark.

I want to offer a brief treatment of how New Testament authors do, in fact, talk about “race,” ethnicity, skin color, and even the cultural sins of entire groups of people.

Eschatalogically

First, and easiest to demonstrate, about which I don’t think Dr. White and I would disagree, the New Testament talks about ethnicity in terms of the eschatological reality the church is headed toward. Around the eternal throne of the Lamb will be people representing every tribe, nation, language and so on (Rev. 7:9). Heaven will forever praise God not only for his redemptive work in the people groups of the world, it will in that way acknowledge human diversity for all eternity.

Missiologically

Second, the New Testament speaks of the church’s missions in terms of ethnicity-specific strategy. Again, I don’t think Dr. White and I would disagree about this. When the apostle says he was “an apostle to the Gentiles” while Peter was “an apostle to the Jews” he teaches us about “race” or ethnicity driving their gospel missions (Rom. 11:13). In one of the most remarkable passages in the NT, Paul uses his freedom in Christ to intentionally put on and take off aspects of his identity so that he might by all means win some to Christ (1 Cor. 9:19-23). Whatever we say about the apostle, we cannot say he is “blind” to ethnic or “racial” differences as some say.

Ecclesiologically

Third, the New Testament speaks of diversity within the body. Dr. White points out the egalitarian unity of Col. 3:11 in which Paul says there’s neither “Jew nor Gentile,” and so on. Of course, Paul cannot mean these things cease to exist. For in the parallel passage the apostle says there’s “neither male nor female” (Gal. 3:28) and Dr. White would be the first to point to the enduring reality of sex or gender and the need to maintain those realities in our present culture. But, of course, these egalitarian passages that describe our essential unity in Christ and equality through our union with him are not the only passages in which the apostle specifically identifies “race” or ethnicity. Let’s just stick with Colossians since that’s the text Dr. White chose. Read on into Colossians 4 and you will see Paul noting the ethnic or racial backgrounds of a good number of people he greets. He points out who among them are Colossians, laments that he only has three Jewish laborers with him, and even points out who is a slave (Onesimus) on his team (Colossians 4:7-17). So whatever Paul means by Col. 3:11 and Gal. 3:28, he does not mean we end up in a color-blind and race-blind and class-blind status in the Church. Indeed, when it serves his apostolic aims for equity, inclusion, affirmation, and so on, Paul intentionally mentions those things.

Harmatiological

Finally, and this is where our disagreement is sharpest, the New Testament does indeed sweepingly speak of ethnic, national, or “racial” groups and their shared guilt and need due to sin. Again, we’re keeping with the New Testament, which is good because the Old Testament examples are legion. Consider Titus 1. The same apostle Dr. White evokes in support of his color-blind/race-blind ethic, speaks pretty bitingly about the Cretans. Hear the apostle in his own divinely-inspired words:

One of the Cretans, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” 13 This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, 14 not devoting themselves to Jewish myths and the commands of people who turn away from the truth.

Whoa! That’s strong language by any measure! The Spirit of God gave Paul those words—carried the apostle along to write what God wanted written. Now, I make no such claims for my words—in any respect! But if the NT is our pattern, if we’re meant to conform to the pattern of sound words, then my critics who often speak sweepingly and harshly themselves (as Dr. White once did about a young African-American man passing in front of his car) are not just vexed with me but must also be vexed with the apostle. He speaks of “Cretans” generally. He uses a secular source—”one of their own prophets”—to establish his claim. He affirms what was generally or culturally true of them regarding their sins: liars, lazy gluttons. He even characterizes them as “evil beasts”! His remedy was to call Titus to “rebuke them sharply,” not find cozy words that leave them in their sin, but sharp rebuke so “they may be sound in the faith.” Which is another important point: sound faith sometimes comes from sharp rebuke. It’s what kept the Cretans from devoting themselves to myths and legalism and is what should be used to keep people enamored with the myths of the American past from continuing in their error.

Conclusion

So, you see, the New Testament is actually a pretty ethnicity- or race-conscious collection of writings. From the eschatological vision of consummated unity down to the harmatiological rebuke of sin, the Bible pays careful attention to who God made us to be, how that’s gone wrong, how it should be considered in spreading the gospel, and how pastoral ministry must address it.

I’m inclined to think the biggest harm to reconciliation and unity isn’t saying something wrong about “race.” That happens all the time, and we must all be big enough to work our way through it when it happens. The biggest wrong is minimizing or denying that racism exists or assigning meaning and emphasis to “race” where the Bible does not. I contend that’s what Dr. White has done, not me. I contend that evangelical churches have failed to call out these things with sharp enough rebuke for far too long.

To put a fine point on it as a closing: When it comes to racism, especially during the original period I was addressing in my first post (1950-’60s), white America is Cretan in its understanding and actions. That does not mean every single white American was a racist—”as some people slanderously charge us with saying.” Reasonable people know better, and they’ve shown so by other tweets not mentioned here. I praise God for those white Americans who had their consciences awakened, marched for equality, stood against injustice, and even gave their lives in the cause. So far from being guilty, such persons are among the righteous who will be rewarded at the resurrection of the just. But by any estimation they were vastly in the minority among white Americans of the period who were either racist or complicit in their silence and inaction. To what should be white America’s shame, it took the force of secular law rather than Christian preaching, and the force of military presence rather than friendly solidarity, to curtail the wickedness of that era. Paul would instruct pastors today to rebuke Cretans en masse for continuing in the myth of an America where racism is minimized and to rebuke the Cretans en masse for sin so widespread it’s cultural. So I do.

]]>https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/four-ways-new-testament-identifies-ethnicity-church/feed/0We Began Three Years Agohttps://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/began-three-years-ago/
Sun, 08 Apr 2018 09:12:20 +0000http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/?post_type=thabiti-anyabwile&p=122806Today we celebrate our three year anniversary at Anacostia River Church! ]]>

Today we celebrate our three-year anniversary at Anacostia River Church! “Excited” doesn’t even begin to describe how I feel. “Amazed” might be a better description.

On Easter Sunday 2015, 60 persons set out to form a family with a mission in the Anacostia/Southeast D.C. neighborhood. We set up the gym of a neighborhood elementary school, plastered some makeshift signs on the door of the building, and commenced to praising Jesus together. It was simple—rustic even. It was joyful and hopeful. We didn’t know what we were doing, but we were having a good time.

Three years later we’re still having a good time being a family and trying to spread the gospel and mercy in our community. In the three years we’ve changed a lot. Our family has grown to about 140 saints. That means lots more people to love and to be loved by. It also means more people for the work of the ministry. We’ve moved to the neighborhood high school, where we’re forging a mutually supportive partnership with administrators and staff to invest in the students. We’ve formed other partnerships with neighborhood groups like The House D.C. and D.C. 127. And for three years now, the Lord has allowed us to preach the gospel every Lord’s Day and to take the gospel door-to-door on many Saturdays. He’s even allowed us to plant another church in our first two years–Mercy of Christ in northeast D.C. Hallelujah!

Hard things have happened, too. Heartbreak is a part of Christian living and ministry. We’ve had our share but, by God’s grace, they’ve not caused us to lose hope or to shrink back from one another or the work.

Along the way, the Father has sent us partner churches and individual donors who have invested in our mission and our family. With them, we’ve been made stronger, and we believe the gospel has taken firmer root in our neighborhood. We still have the profound sense that people pray for us.

We have not seen revival. We long for more conversions. We are not yet a fixture in the neighborhood. We need to become more visible. And we haven’t solved the community problems that simultaneously break our hearts and excite our love. But we’re still here, and we’re still learning, and we’re still at it, and God is still being gracious to us!

It’s easy to forget that we’re a baby of a church—just three years old. A toddler not long out of diapers. I think we forget we’re so young because the Father has given us genuine knowledge of one another and because we see so many other evidences of grace. It’s interesting how God’s blessings can make you think you’re more than you are! I’m happy we’re still new and hope we never lose the sense of freshness, possibility, and excited energy that comes with newness.

We’re not slick or fancy. We don’t take ourselves seriously. But we do take the gospel of Jesus Christ seriously, and on this third anniversary I have the sense that he has honored our hope and our prayers. May he graciously grant us decades upon decades more grace until the earth is won or he sends his Son!

Happy anniversary ARC!

]]>The One Sin That Must Not Be Confessedhttps://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/one-sin-must-not-confessed/
Sat, 07 Apr 2018 09:06:22 +0000http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/?post_type=thabiti-anyabwile&p=122605When it comes to racism, some people are quick to say, “It’s not a skin problem, it’s a sin problem.” Does that really help?]]>

When it comes to racism, some people are quick to say, “It’s not a skin problem, it’s a sin problem.” It’s a cute statement. I appreciate the sentiment. As far as I understand it, it’s trying to get to the root of the issue while avoiding distraction with superficial aspects (skin color). I’m cool with the statement as far as that is concerned.

But there seem to be some who go a step further. They regard any mention of skin color, especially in a charge of racism, as tantamount to racism itself. They argue that we don’t need to confess “racism” but to confess the heart problem, confess “sin.” Again, I get the sentiment. “Race” (a fiction) and racism (a very real sin) are quagmires or mazes that once entered are terribly difficult to escape and often result in compounded sins. I think we all want a way out. I know I do. For some people opting for a theological and biblical term (“sin”) seems like a way forward.

However, if we intentionally or unintentionally come to the conclusion that what must be confessed is “sin” abstractly rather than racism specifically, then I’m afraid our doctrines of sin and confession become a hindrance to repentance, sanctification, and reconciliation rather than a help. We can’t overcome something we won’t admit.

Further, if we were to confess “sin” rather than racism specifically because confessing racism is “divisive,” oddly racism would be the only sin we treat that way.

We do not say to spouses trying to deal with a broken marriage covenant, “Do not confess ‘adultery,’ because the real problem is sin, and calling it ‘adultery’ divides the marriage.”

We do not say to roommates dealing with broken promises, “You really should confess sin rather than confessing that you lied, because calling it a ‘lie’ is divisive.”

We do not say to the prodigal child, “What is really happening is sin rather than disobedience. Don’t call it ‘disobedience to your parents,’ because that separates you from your parents.”

Until the spouse’s adultery is confessed and repented, the roommate’s lying confessed and repented, or the child’s disobedience confessed and repented, there can be no firm foundation for repairing the breach in relationship. Calling the breach what it is and identifying the specific source is not the problem; it’s actually the first step in a solution.

That’s what makes avoiding the admission of racism a mind-numbing affair. I cannot think of a single particular sin people would encourage someone to avoid confessing except for the sin of racism. I can’t think of a single instance of bystanding, partiality, or indifference in the face of sin and injustice Christians would excuse except racism. Some treat racism as the one sin that must not be confessed forthrightly, identified specifically, and repented of with fruit particular to it.

Though some insist that this specificity regarding racism is the problem, I cannot think of a single passage of scripture that would commend an abstract way of handling our sin. John the Baptist did not counsel the sinners of his day to confess “sin” and avoid the particular nature of their transgressions. He preached in Luke 3:

7 He said therefore to the crowds that came out to be baptized by him, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?8 Bear fruits in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham.9 Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.”

10 And the crowds asked him, “What then shall we do?”11 And he answered them, “Whoever has two tunics[b] is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise.”12 Tax collectors also came to be baptized and said to him, “Teacher, what shall we do?”13 And he said to them, “Collect no more than you are authorized to do.”14 Soldiers also asked him, “And we, what shall we do?” And he said to them, “Do not extort money from anyone by threats or by false accusation, and be content with your wages.”

John was clear that appeals to the innocence of their forefather (Abraham) was no absolution for them, no get-out-of-repenting-free card (v. 8). Each of them and all of them in their affiliations had business to do with God. To particular groups of people known for sins particular to them, John called them to repent of those particular transgressions. He did not worry that tax collectors would feel picked on. He did not allow soldiers to remain anonymous for fear of social stigma. He addressed them according to their station in life and according to the sins related to their station. That specificity was the path to their freedom from sin and integrity with God. We should address specific sins of groups the way John the Baptist did, including the sin of racism.

There’s another reason we should be specific: the Bible is specific. Consider the places where the Bible gives us a catalogue of particular sins (Rom. 1:28-32; 1 Cor. 6:9-11; Gal. 5:19-21; and 1 Tim. 1:8-11). Why does the divinely inspired Word of God give us so many lists with such specificity? It’s not solely that we might conclude we are sinners in general but that we might also know what sins threaten our souls or our sanctification and repent of them specifically.

Friends, someone is selling you a bag of nothing when they wax poetic about racism being a sin problem rather than a specific manifestation of sin for which we need to specifically repent where we’re guilty—either by commission or omission. They show they actually misunderstand the nature of this sin, because the sin itself intentionally attaches to skin color. And they do a disservice to the entire church and world when they use that approach to define away real problems that continue and seem in some quarters to be growing today. Or, worse, use that strategy to try and paint those pointing out the problem as the “true racists.”

Do not be taken in by this often well-intended (sometimes self-serving) but always deficient way of dealing with sin. Let us repent of specific sins specifically.

]]>The Myth of Impeccable Individualismhttps://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/myth-impeccable-individualism/
Fri, 06 Apr 2018 09:18:23 +0000http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/?post_type=thabiti-anyabwile&p=122322The cross avails us little if we can not admit our guilt, including our guilt for positive duties left undone, sins of omission, like failing to seek justice and correct oppression.]]>

America prizes individualism. Deep in the DNA of the country is the belief that the individual matters more than the state. America defends the proposition that the individual—with his or her freedoms, gifts, and resources—ought to be judged as an individual, by their own merits, without regard to the sins and faults of others.

There’s a logic to the notion. One individual cannot legitimately be held responsible for the actions of others as if the other’s actions were their own. If my next-door neighbor mistreats small animals, I should not be charged with animal cruelty as if I had done it. By any sane standard that is an injustice.

But individualism won’t suffice as a full accounting for the injustices of the world. There are times when simply claiming “I did not do that myself” does not exonerate us. If my next-door neighbor mistreats small animals and I witness it but do nothing, I am culpable as a bystander to that injustice. I did not commit it, but I am complicit in my inaction and silence.

At least that’s the way God thinks about things. Consider Isaiah 1:

“What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices?says the LORD;I have had enough of burnt offerings of ramsand the fat of well-fed beasts;I do not delight in the blood of bulls,or of lambs, or of goats.

12 “When you come to appear before me,who has required of youthis trampling of my courts?13 Bring no more vain offerings;incense is an abomination to me.New moon and Sabbath and the calling of convocations—I cannot endure iniquity and solemn assembly.14 Your new moons and your appointed feastsmy soul hates;they have become a burden to me;I am weary of bearing them.15 When you spread out your hands,I will hide my eyes from you;even though you make many prayers,I will not listen;your hands are full of blood.16 Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean;remove the evil of your deeds from before my eyes;cease to do evil,17 learn to do good;seek justice,correct oppression;bring justice to the fatherless,plead the widow’s cause.

God addresses the entire people. He rejects their worship. He counts their offerings as vain and expresses holy intolerance for their assemblies. The God they worship actually refuses to listen to them and hides his eyes from them. Nothing could be more tragic than worshiping God while he closes himself off from you! Nothing could be more sobering that recognizing the God of Isaiah 1 is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

But why does God reject their worship?

They had become an unfaithful city where bribes were sought and justice denied (v. 23). The language of the chapter makes it clear that moral corruption was the general character of the society. The whole thing was shot through with the sin of injustice and the people as a whole were being called to account.

Now, stop and ask yourself: Was every single individual guilty of these things? Did every individual actively commit these treasons against God?

Almost certainly not. Surely there were even some who were innocent of these things. We could confidently conclude that at least Isaiah was not guilty of these transgressions.

And yet, every person, including Isaiah (see chap. 6), needed to “wash themselves” and “make themselves clean.” They needed atonement. They needed to “remove the evil of their deeds from before God’s eyes” and “seek justice, correct oppression.” How might it be the case that individuals not directly guilty of its society’s sins are nevertheless being held accountable for them?

Well, seeking justice and correcting oppression are positive duties for the people of God. Leaving these duties undone makes us complicit in the sins of our society. Claiming personal innocence in directly committing a sin will not absolve us of failing to actually oppose wrongdoers or positively establish justice. Refusing to speak up for the voiceless (Prov. 31:8-9) is a sin. Bystanders get no pass. Not in God’s sight. We must positively do our part in our spheres to seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause.

So, yes, every person who failed in their sphere to oppose slavery or Jim Crow segregation or the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr, and every person who fails in their sphere to oppose abortion or sex trafficking in their cities and countries today, bears some guilt for those societal sins. They need not have committed the sins themselves; their guilt comes from failing to actively denounce and oppose these injustices or from accepting benefits from the society that produced the injustices and sins.

So, yeah, if a person enjoyed the benefits of 1950s-’60s Jim Crow America and did nothing to correct the injustice of that society, they are guilty of the sins of that society. They may not have made the ropes that lynched the neighbor, but carrying on as if a lynching or an assassination had not happened is a guilt all its own. Theologically impeccable individuals are not the result of personal innocence and social by-standing. That kind of impeccable individual is a myth conjured to help some avoid hard truths that implicate them.

But there’s good news for those who can admit these things. The same God who rejects vain worship delights to make us clean. He says to us in Isaiah 1:18:

“Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD:though your sins are like scarlet,they shall be as white as snow;though they are red like crimson,they shall become like wool.”

When we accept God’s invitation to reason together with him, it’s unreasonable to tell him we don’t need to be washed because we haven’t participated in a sin characteristic of our society or church. It’s unreasonable to claim we are entirely innocent of the characteristic sins of our society if we have not actively sought to establish justice. The reasonable person—according to God—will admit they’re standing there drenched in scarlet guilt needing to be washed and made white as snow.

Gospel people understand this. Biblical people understand this. More than understand this, they rejoice in it, because they know there’s a way to be clean before God, the way of the cross. Yet the cross avails us little if we cannot admit our guilt, including our guilt for positive duties left undone, sins of omission, like failing to seek justice and correct oppression. There’s a better than even chance that if we can’t admit these things about our parents’ or grandparents’ generation we will have a hard time admitting it about our own.

]]>Admitting Thingshttps://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/admitting-things/
Thu, 05 Apr 2018 20:12:20 +0000http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/?post_type=thabiti-anyabwile&p=122228Yesterday, reflecting on the 50th anniversary of the assassination of Dr. King, I wrote that until white neighbors and Christians could admit he was murdered (and didn’t just “die”) and that his murder was the result of 1950-60s white supremacy, racism, etc., we would not heal as we ought and make progress as we ought. That should not be a controversial statement to anyone familiar with the facts of the country’s history or anyone who has viewed even an introductory documentary on the Civil Rights Movement. What is racial segregation but a society-wide commitment to racism and white supremacy? What...]]>

Yesterday, reflecting on the 50th anniversary of the assassination of Dr. King, I wrote that until white neighbors and Christians could admit he was murdered (and didn’t just “die”) and that his murder was the result of 1950-60s white supremacy, racism, etc., we would not heal as we ought and make progress as we ought.

That should not be a controversial statement to anyone familiar with the facts of the country’s history or anyone who has viewed even an introductory documentary on the Civil Rights Movement. What is racial segregation but a society-wide commitment to racism and white supremacy? What is the willful assassination of a Christian preacher because he is African American and opposed to segregation but the forces of hate unleashing itself against the preacher of love and justice? What are the many professing Christians marching and protesting in opposition to other professing Christians seeking basic civil rights but a sneering, shouting, sometimes violent demonstration that the sin of the country was also the sin of the Church?

Admitting the racism and white supremacy of the 1950-60s should not be difficult.

But some people were “angered” by my writing that post. The now customary dismissals and Twitter outrage followed.

But stop for a moment and ask, “Why is this hard to admit?” Why is something so well documented and demonstrable such a difficult thing to acknowledge by some people? Why would a straight-faced denunciation of something so evil be considered unkind and unloving? Why might specifying that white citizens and Christians are particularly responsible to examine these things and admit them be problematic when this particular sin was the almost exclusive province of white people in the 1950s and 1960s? And how might an inability to admit even the historical obvious be causing us trouble in the living present or the coming future?

Might it be the case that the inability to admit the obvious about our past shows itself in fresh aggravation and consternation when we see Neo-Nazis marching today? Could it be that the simple act of failing to admit the historically true turns into complex construals that keep us from forthrightly naming present manifestations around us? I mean, how do Tennessee legislators today fail twice to pass a resolution condemning blatant racism?

But you see, the “denialists” and the “idealists” want to tuck these things safely away in the vault of history. Every instance contrary to their revisionism they either define as an extreme exception or the fault of those race-crazed people who just can’t get over it. There are race-crazed people in the world. Some of them, beloved, are white. The first of them, beloved, are white. The ones who organized the social fabric and laws of entire countries based on racial color caste, from the United States to South Africa, are white. Saying so should not be a hard pill to swallow for honest people who are repentant and who do not on some level protectively idolize their skin color.

We’re not done with racial animus, indifference, and the like. It’s a living reality and will be as long as Adam’s sin haunts humanity’s steps.

As much as a handful of critics don’t want to admit it, our failure at simply admitting compromises our ability to successfully deal with sin. The gospel begins with “Repent….” All the good of the gospel follows that action of admitting and turning. We wonder why “gospel-preaching churches” aren’t seeing more progress in racial reconciliation. Might I simply suggest that progress–of all sorts–begins with admitting.

]]>We Await Repentance for Assassinating Dr. Kinghttps://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/await-repentance-assassinating-dr-king/
Wed, 04 Apr 2018 12:58:16 +0000http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/?post_type=thabiti-anyabwile&p=121924Until this country and the Church learns to confess its particular sins particularly, we will not overcome the Adamic hostility that infects the human soul and distorts human potential.]]>

I’ve been conflicted about the “celebration” of the fiftieth anniversary of the assassination of Dr. King.

On the one hand, I’ve been battling my unbelief and discouragement to maintain at least a slender hope that the commemorations would be one step—even one step—in the long journey toward reconciliation, peace, and justice.

On the other hand, it’s struck me as perversely curious to “celebrate the fiftieth anniversary” as some put it. In quite a number of such “celebrations,” one can barely find in the conference themes and slogans a mention that the fiftieth anniversary does not commemorate Dr. King’s birth or life but his murder. Dr. King was assassinated. He did not die peacefully in his sleep. He died violently and cruelly from the bullet fired from the .30-06 Remington Model 760, a bullet tearing through his cheek, breaking his jaw and vertebrae as it rifled through his spine.

James Earl Ray initially confessed to assassinating Dr. King. But he did not act alone. Many have long believed there was a literal conspiracy of Government actors, the mafia, and Memphis police. Whether or not you believe Ray acted as a patsy for these conspirators, he did not act alone. He acted with the tacit and sometimes explicit approval of white supremacists. He acted with the encouragement of a white society dedicated to the advantage of whites above all others and simultaneously the segregation, oppression, and exploitation of black people. Ray acted with the assistance of whites who suppressed their consciences. He acted with the assistance of anti-Civil Rights propagandists and white-collar country club segregationists. He acted with the assistance of a FBI COINTELPRO campaign charged with discrediting, maligning, and silencing voices of Black dissent. These parties acted in concert, in the same direction, against Dr. King and by extension the millions of African Americans hoping for some larger piece of freedom’s promise.

I’m saying the entire society killed Dr. King. This society had been slowly killing him all along. Taylor Branch, King scholar and award-winning biographer, pointed out that Dr. King at the time of his death, though only 39, had the heart of a 60-year old. He suggests, I think legitimately, that the stresses of the Civil Rights Movement and of pervasive Jim Crow hostility showed itself in the 20-year aging of Dr. King’s heart. Dr. King himself knew the slow death of white supremacy would give way to a sudden violent end. Following the assassination of President Kennedy, Dr. King commented to his wife, Coretta, “This is what is going to happen to me also. I keep telling you, this is a sick society.”

This is a sick society. And we kid ourselves if we think all the sickness gets healed just by time and rest. Racism, prejudice, hatred and bigotry is not a cold. It’s a cancer. It mutates. It metastasizes. And despite our protest and insistence otherwise, this sickness gets passed on in a kind of social hereditary action, sometimes unconsciously and unsuspected, sometimes systemically, and sometimes intentionally and virulently. The Civil Rights leaders standing on the balcony on that dark day pointed not only to Ray and the area where the shot was fired, but figuratively pointed to the entire country in its sinister hatred and racism.

I don’t need all white people to feel guilty about the 1950s and 60s—especially those who weren’t even alive. But I do need all of us to suspect that sin isn’t done working its way through society. I do need all my neighbors—especially my brothers and sisters in Christ—to recognize that no sin has ever been eliminated from the world and certainly not eliminated simply with the passage of time and a willingness of some people to act as if it was never there. If this country will make any significant stride toward freedom, it must have enough courage to at least make it clear that Dr. King didn’t just “die” but was “assassinated,” “murdered,” “violently killed” and with the approval of far too many in this country. Until and unless there is repentance of this animus and murderous hatred, the country will remain imprisoned to a seared conscience. Until this country and the Church learns to confess its particular sins particularly, we will not overcome the Adamic hostility that infects the human soul and distorts human potential.

Don’t get me wrong. I know Dr. King’s life was much greater than his death. I understand that his death gives us opportunity to reflect on his legacy. But it also gives opportunity to reflect on that twist in our soul that rose up and killed him. It gives opportunity to repent of the things some have with too much pride too often refused to admit is there.

My white neighbors and Christian brethren can start by at least saying their parents and grandparents and this country are complicit in murdering a man who only preached love and justice.

If we’re serious, then we can go on to commit ourselves to laying down our lives for others as Dr. King did. After all, the King of Kings said, “Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13).

]]>My Immigrant Familyhttps://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/my-immigrant-family/
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/my-immigrant-family/#respondFri, 12 Jan 2018 14:02:08 +0000http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/?post_type=thabiti-anyabwile&p=110392I find it not only irresponsible but dangerous to leave the President's comments unchallenged and to pretend the resulting policy direction is free from racist bias.]]>

Last night our church family held one of its members’ meetings. We began by hearing the baptism testimony of a Rwandan woman who as a young girl survived that country’s genocide and refugee camps to eventually be adopted by an aunt living in the United States. Jesus used the faith of her mother to keep her through the arrest, torture, and murder of her father and grandfather until that faith would become her own.

We followed the baptism with a report from our first short-term mission team, sent to minister to the largely Muslim population of Mombasa, Kenya. They shared with us the transformative work of the gospel in their lives and in the lives of Kenyans literally living in smoking, fly-infested trash heaps.

As I think about the faces I saw in the room last night, I’m transported around the world. There’s the regal older Nigerian couple sitting directly in front of me. He immigrated to the States first and for more than a decade they lived apart, keeping covenant with one another, until they could be together in their new home building a new life. They are older representatives of a growing part of our church family with connections to Nigeria.

There’s the young Hispanic man, Mexican, I think, who loves the Chicago of his birth as fiercely as any American loves any city. He sits with his wife and their precocious 4-year-old daughter.

Behind them is an African-American woman. She’s married to a Zimbabwean man, a Rhodes scholar, whose intelligence is far surpassed by his humility, gentleness, and genuine affection for people. They have three sons learning to embrace the two heritages their parents represent.

At one point we attempted a presentation on our new church membership software. A young Nigerian man partnered with a young Ethiopian woman to make the presentation.

I’m reminded of our deacon of budget, an accomplished educator and “policy guy” whose parents are Japanese and Hispanic immigrants. His parents worked hard to send him to Stanford, then graduate school at Oxford or Cambridge, where he heard the gospel and believed. He’s married to a second-generation Haitian woman, and together they have two sons younger than 5. Her mother, a first-generation Haitian immigrant, also belongs to our family.

A Guyanese man leans into his African-American wife as they listen to the reports and updates. His mother, also a member, is away celebrating her birthday but would normally be right there with us. She’s growing like a weed and has become a real mother to the entire church.

A young mother sits near the rear taking care of her infant son. They’ve come to brave the long meeting, ruining sleep routines I’m sure. She comes from a Jewish family. She loves the nations.

One member of our short-term mission team to Kenya hails from Cameroon. She’s 28 and thinking of leaving her career to serve the Lord full-time on the mission field.

We prayed for one of our former elders. I asked the wife of another elder to lead in prayer. Soft-spoken, spiritual, zealous yet soothing, she is Hmong. Her people have no country to call their own.

During the meeting we welcomed some new members. In addition to the Rwandan woman was another woman, an attorney, whose family immigrated from Dominica when she was young. There was also the young aspiring politician completing a graduate program at Georgetown University whose family is from an African country that escapes me right now. Weber must be a German name; he joins the membership too.

This is my immigrant family, my true brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus. We have been a diverse family from the start, from the time we were sent from a larger diverse congregation of brothers and sisters. I look out on embodied, relational evidence of the reconciling power and reality of Jesus Christ.

On the drive home from our family meeting last night, I learned that in the Oval Office, that hallowed ground of American political power and aspiration, President Trump reportedly made racist and troublesome comments regarding immigrants and their countries of origin. My family.

I’m a pastor, not a politician. But I am a pastor of particular people with diverse and rich backgrounds. They contribute to our church family in indescribable ways. They are our church family. My job is to shepherd them, which means I am to feed them, lead them, and protect them.

As a shepherd, I cannot abide the comments our President makes regarding immigrant peoples and their countries of origin. I cannot leave them alone to hear racist barbs, evil speech, incendiary comment, and blasphemous slander against the image and likeness of God in which they are made.

I am at a loss for how much I can tangibly do to change the situation. But at least I can speak up to say, “This is unacceptable. It is wrong. It is evil. It denigrates our citizens and our country. It does not make us great. It cannot be tolerated in our church and should not be tolerated in our society.” It is a leader’s responsibility to:

Open your mouth for the mute,

for the rights of all who are destitute.

Open your mouth, judge righteously,

defend the rights of the poor and needy. (Prov. 31:8-9)

I find it not only irresponsible but dangerous to leave the President’s comments unchallenged and to pretend the resulting policy direction is free from racist bias. I find it unconscionable and unloving to carry on the important immigration debate of our country as if the decisions made at the policy level will not have dramatic life-altering and, in some cases, life-destroying consequences for those affected. It is necessary that we heed our God’s command to never wrong or oppress but to protect the aliens and sojourners in our midst—in the midst of our families called “churches.”

At least today, in some meager measure, this pastor’s obedience to the Father means saying something as a pastor about the continued sin, bigotry, animus, and prejudice espoused by the highest office-holder in our land. I hope Americans of every political persuasion and every ethnic background will resolutely reject the President’s comments, oppose the same kinds of comments in our families and social spaces, and commit again to being “a nation of immigrants” who welcome “the huddled masses.” And I pray that if Americans cannot do that en masse, the church of the Lord Jesus Christ will.

]]>https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/my-immigrant-family/feed/0Contagionhttps://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/contagion/
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/contagion/#respondWed, 22 Nov 2017 15:22:41 +0000http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/?post_type=thabiti-anyabwile&p=106441By God's grace and the power of the Holy Spirit, we can exercise self-control, bring every thought captive, and obey the commands to be thankful, joyful or even weep in a godly way.]]>

Feelings spread. From person to person.

Sometimes one person directly transfers their feeling to another. A happy first-time mom infects another woman with her joy. A middle-school-aged boy at the school dance passes along his fear of dancing to his friends.

But sometimes feelings mutate as they pass from one person to another. The happy mom’s joy becomes bitterness in a young woman who hasn’t had children. A widow’s grief elicits sympathy from her friends.

Emotion may be the most contagious “substance” in creation. We pass it along with as little as a look. Touch may spread it even faster. Words evoke multiple emotions all at once. Feelings may lie dormant for long periods only to emerge at unexpected and inconvenient times. Attempts to stop the contagion sometimes aggravate the pandemic all the more.

We cannot avoid emotion. God gave us this good gift. It defines us as creatures made in our Maker’s image and likeness. The question becomes: What emotion(s) are we passing along to others? When people are with us, do they “catch” a toxic virus, or do we pass along good the emotional equivalent of a healthy body flora? Do we sicken, or do we make strong?

We cannot avoid emotion, but we do not have to be overrun by our feelings. By God’s grace and the power of the Holy Spirit, we can exercise self-control, bring every thought captive, and obey the commands to be thankful, joyful, or even weep in a godly way. If our emotions are a contagion, Lord, please let people “catch” godliness from us!

]]>https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/contagion/feed/0Your Church Is Not Evangelicalismhttps://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/106431/
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/106431/#respondWed, 22 Nov 2017 01:52:48 +0000http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/?post_type=thabiti-anyabwile&p=106431Some Christians make no distinction between the larger evangelical movement with all its warts and their own local churches with all their brothers and sisters. That's hurting local churches and those Christians.
]]>

It feels like a subterranean roiling has finally burst to the surface. For a long time dis-ease has been working its way through evangelicalism. Faultlines of “race,” gender, and culture have threatened volcanic explosion—and for some it’s happened.

We’ve been feeling the effects of evangelical realignment at least since the emergence of affinity networks that broke the boundaries of longer-standing denominational lines. That realignment quickened as older evangelicals steeped in culture wars lost the respect of younger evangelicals hungering for a new way to be faithful in this riotous culture. Add the cultural and political turmoil of the last three years—police shootings of African Americans, sexual-assault allegations, child sex-abuse scandals—and it’s as if someone flipped the tables of easy alliance.

Then came the 2016 election, which seemed to feature every deep anxiety suffered by diverse members of the fragile evangelical alliance. The morning following the election, suspicion, accusation and recrimination sauntered right into the sanctuary, shouldering their way between worshipers who previously delighted in God’s grace together. For some, all that’s wrong with evangelicalism at large became a property of their particular local assembly. What could be leveled at the broader movement became the criticism of local churches with names and faces.

I didn’t know what was happening the first time I encountered strong reactions from members who read something I wrote about evangelicalism and assumed I “was talking about them.” They were and continue the be the furthest thing from my mind when writing about evangelicalism, the way my wife is not in view when I write or speak about marriage. I listened. I tried to understand. I puzzled over it all. Then I realized some Christians make no distinction between the larger evangelical movement with all its warts and their own local churches with all their brothers and sisters.

But “evangelicalism” is not every church and every church is not “evangelicalism.” The ability to distinguish between the two may be the one thing that preserves the fraying unity of many local congregations.

When I think of evangelicalism, I do not think of Anacostia River Church (ARC), my family, with individuals I love and serve. Their stories I know. Their burdens I help to carry. Their needs inform my prayers. Their celebrations prompt my own. The members of ARC are too particular to be subsumed in a nondescript evangelicalism.

“Evangelicalism” is an amorphous, anonymous, faceless movement. Like all coalitions, it combines disparate parts around a limited agenda. Like all coalitions, the parts may have identities quite distinct from the whole. Like all coalitions, the competing parts threaten the cohesive whole. Like all coalitions, evangelicalism may not last—at least not in its pre-2017 iteration. So a critique of evangelicalism is no critique of any particular local church.

So I’m learning to make this distinction clear. I’m learning not to assume everyone has this distinction in mind. I’m hoping everyone will be able to distinguish their church from the movement as whole. I’m hoping that not because I want to discourage local churches from reflecting deeply on what the flaws of the broader movement mean for them, but because I want individual Christians to see the very real grace of God at work in their church families. What may be true of evangelicalism may not at all be true of the man, woman, boy or girl singing next to you on Sunday. Distinguishing the two may help us to love.

]]>https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/106431/feed/0A Poem for My Wife on Her Birthdayhttps://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/a-poem-for-my-wife-on-her-birthday/
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/a-poem-for-my-wife-on-her-birthday/#respondTue, 25 Apr 2017 04:00:00 +0000http://tgcstaging.wpengine.com/thabiti-anyabwile/a-poem-for-my-wife-on-her-birthday/Every flower that dares bloom Should hide in shame Compared to your beauty. Or if it dared to speak Should asked to be named “Kristie.” Truly. Every ray sparkling from the sun Ought seek cover of night Next to your radiance. Or if it could indeed run Should immediately take flight To avoid embarrassment. Birds that sing Might wish to be silent For fear of losing tune. Or suffer the sting Of singing beside one Whose voice makes angels swoon. If a muse could have a muse I’m sure it would choose Inspiration from you. Just as if I could...]]>

Every flower that dares bloom
Should hide in shame
Compared to your beauty.

Or if it dared to speak
Should asked to be named
“Kristie.” Truly.

Every ray sparkling from the sun
Ought seek cover of night
Next to your radiance.

Or if it could indeed run
Should immediately take flight
To avoid embarrassment.

Birds that sing
Might wish to be silent
For fear of losing tune.

Or suffer the sting
Of singing beside one
Whose voice makes angels swoon.

If a muse could have a muse
I’m sure it would choose
Inspiration from you.

Just as if I could choose
27 years later to again use
My choice of spouse, I’d choose you.

]]>https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/a-poem-for-my-wife-on-her-birthday/feed/04 Problems Associated with White Evangelical Support of Donald Trumphttps://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/4-problems-associated-with-white-evangelical-support-of-donald-trump/
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/4-problems-associated-with-white-evangelical-support-of-donald-trump/#respondWed, 09 Nov 2016 05:00:00 +0000http://tgcstaging.wpengine.com/thabiti-anyabwile/4-problems-associated-with-white-evangelical-support-of-donald-trump/Donald Trump’s race to the White House defied every prediction and expectation. From his controversial speech announcing his candidacy, to the large crowds filling stadiums, through scandalous comments of one variety or another, down to last night’s election returns, Mr. Trump repeatedly did what everyone said he couldn’t or shouldn’t do. His campaign energized sections of the country who were either fed up with or checked out of the usual political cycle. Along the way, Mr. Trump defeated two political dynasties—the Bush and Clinton families—and broke nearly every “rule” on presidential elections. As a result, Mr. Trump will become our...]]>Lightstock

Donald Trump’s race to the White House defied every prediction and expectation. From his controversial speech announcing his candidacy, to the large crowds filling stadiums, through scandalous comments of one variety or another, down to last night’s election returns, Mr. Trump repeatedly did what everyone said he couldn’t or shouldn’t do. His campaign energized sections of the country who were either fed up with or checked out of the usual political cycle. Along the way, Mr. Trump defeated two political dynasties—the Bush and Clinton families—and broke nearly every “rule” on presidential elections. As a result, Mr. Trump will become our 45th President in about three months.

The next several days will certainly be filled with punditry, analysis, and reflection. All kinds of viewpoints will fill our airwaves, some celebratory and some dismayed. We’ll learn more about campaign strategies, demographic trends, and exit polls. An overarching story will take shape, and perhaps a new conventional wisdom will develop.

But as a Christian and leader of some sort, I’m most interested in what took place with evangelicals during this election. Exit polls tell us that white evangelicals voted overwhelmingly for Mr. Trump, coming in at 81 percent. For historical perspective, that surpasses the 78 percent of evangelicals who voted for fellow evangelical candidate George W. Bush in 2004.

Pulling the lever at 8 out of 10 times for Trump, however, should not be confused with unqualified, widespread support. Many “held their noses” as they did so, if we are to believe the “unfavorable” numbers for Mr. Trump. Many simply believed Trump was “less bad” than Mrs. Clinton. Still others, keeping an eye on Supreme Court nominations, sided with Mr. Trump with the hopes of a more conservative court and possibly putting a dent in Roe v. Wade. It’s been said all along that “evangelical” is difficult to define.

But that’s what makes the turnout in favor of Mr. Trump so interesting to me. If there is one way to define evangelical, it’s by voting behavior, the very metric that journalists and sociologists have been using for years. I know many who would prefer a theological definition and find the journalistic approach troublesome. But with 80 percent of professing evangelicals selecting the GOP nominee, we can no longer act as if all the journalists misunderstand the movement. In the polling booth, “evangelical” does amount to very nearly one thing, or at least one voting behavior.

Now, it should also be said that there were a number of #NeverTrump evangelicals. Twenty percent did not vote for him. But what’s fairly clear by that percentage is those white evangelicals are the minority in this election and quite possibly in the movement itself. All election I heard #NeverTrump evangelicals saying they didn’t know of any evangelicals who were voting for Trump. As it turns out, they did. Eight out of ten persons in their churches, small groups, and conference gatherings voted for Trump, even if they said they weren’t. Either their friends were swayed at the last minute or downright dishonest. But in either case, the number of evangelicals who put gospel and character before politics and party are small.

I’m pondering this today. Admittedly, my thoughts are not very developed, and in a week or two I may have learned more and changed positions. But at this point, I think the evangelical turnout for Mr. Trump signals several fatal weaknesses in the movement.

First, the movement has surrendered any claims to the moral high ground in electoral politics. Even though many evangelicals chose Trump while having significant reservations about his character, they nevertheless chose Trump. They did not choose character. To be clear, Mrs. Clinton was not an objectively better moral option. But not voting, voting third party, or writing in, as many said they would, were also options. The lion’s share of evangelicals put character concerns aside and pulled the lever for a man whose character is every bit as “flawed” as President Clinton’s, whose impeachment evangelicals supported. For that choice, as many have already observed, the moral high ground is lost.

Second, the movement has abandoned public solidarity with groups who considered Mr. Trump an existential threat to them. I’m speaking here of the many groups who expressed reservation regarding Mr. Trump’s racism, religious bigotry, misogyny, isolationism, and nativism. People with those concerns came from a lot of groups in the country, including African-American Christians, many themselves evangelicals. At 80 percent, white evangelicalism en masse sided with Mr. Trump over and against the concerns of fellow evangelicals weary of his alienating and divisive rhetoric and campaign promises. Based on correspondence during the campaign and following the election, it seems clear to me that that voting decision will likely put a deep chill on efforts at reconciliation and co-belligerence in the culture. For many, evangelicals expressed solidarity (again) with some of the worst aspects of American history and culture while abandoning brothers and sisters of like precious faith. Coming back from that may be difficult.

Third, the movement failed to escape its partisan bias in favor of more principled and biblical stands. A good number of evangelicals took #NeverTrump positions because they did not recognize Mr. Trump as a bona fide conservative. They felt conservative principles had been abandoned by party leadership. They felt a charlatan had hijacked their political home. But not enough of them sought out a new home, one of their own making based on more sure biblical grounds. Instead, some evangelicals offered “biblical” justification for voting Trump and minimized his character flaws. Others endorsed and vigorously campaigned for him. With last night’s election result, the GOP stranglehold on evangelical conscience and voting may have tightened to unbreakable strength. It may be we’ve reached the point that the only thing that would move evangelicals in more constructive directions would be outright persecution from the GOP itself. Short of that, it’s difficult to imagine evangelicals going elsewhere. This, for me, is all the more discouraging because I’ve long endured evangelicals questioning African-American allegiance to the Democratic Party. “Why do nearly all African Americans vote for Democrats?” they ask. “Isn’t it better if African Americans refuse allegiance to that party?” I resonate with the sentiment; but I wonder if it’s not born in some sense of hypocrisy. If the movement doesn’t escape its partisan pull, its usefulness will be seriously compromised.

Finally, the movement has made its evangelistic mission more difficult with many it wants to reach. A good number of people outside the faith look at the exit polls aghast and angry. Aghast because they themselves cannot imagine supporting a candidate with the personal moral flaws of Mr. Trump. Angry because they’ve watched evangelicals moralize in public for a long time, often shaming people for their sins and moral weaknesses. The vote for Trump creates or amplifies a credibility problem for evangelicals. Why should the unrepentant listen to their gospel when it seems so evident they’ve not applied that gospel to their political choices? “Shouldn’t we view evangelicals as basically concerned with politics over all things?” they ask. Convincing answers will be difficult to find. For many, Christ and the gospel are now bound up—rightly or wrongly—with evangelicals choosing a man with little resemblance to either.

And all of this was wrought by the bulk of evangelicalism itself. No one forced this on the movement. An 81 percent return will not allow us to discard these voters as “not truly evangelical.” At the moment, that’s exactly who evangelicalism is.

This is why I tweeted, to the confusion or chagrin of a few, “Congratulations white evangelicalism on your candidate’s win. I don’t understand you and I think you just sealed some awful fate.” A few took offense. But a couple hundred retweeted it without comment. Not all retweets are endorsements. And perhaps those retweets came from the 20 percent who did not support Trump. But in either case, I’m not alone in seeing serious problems with evangelicalism’s witness at the moment. I fear the fate of the movement may have been in some measure sealed with this vote.

]]>https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/4-problems-associated-with-white-evangelical-support-of-donald-trump/feed/0In Praise of Gaye Clark (and Others Like Her)https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/in-praise-of-gaye-clark-and-others-like-her/
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/in-praise-of-gaye-clark-and-others-like-her/#respondWed, 10 Aug 2016 04:00:00 +0000http://tgcstaging.wpengine.com/thabiti-anyabwile/in-praise-of-gaye-clark-and-others-like-her/Note: The views and opinions expressed here do not necessarily represent TGC or any of its council members, staff or supporters. They are the views of the author alone. This is a personal blog that happens to be hosted at TGC. Such hosting should not be construed as an endorsement from TGC for anything written here. My sister-in-Christ, Gaye Clark, offered a reflection on what it was like for her to be surprised when her daughter courted and later married a Black man. Clark’s piece is not the first of its kind, even at The Gospel Coalition. Trip Lee wrote about...]]>

Note: The views and opinions expressed here do not necessarily represent TGC or any of its council members, staff or supporters. They are the views of the author alone. This is a personal blog that happens to be hosted at TGC. Such hosting should not be construed as an endorsement from TGC for anything written here.

My sister-in-Christ, Gaye Clark, offered a reflection on what it was like for her to be surprised when her daughter courted and later married a Black man. Clark’s piece is not the first of its kind, even at The Gospel Coalition. Trip Lee wrote about his marriage to a white sister in the Lord. And it’s no secretive conversation among African Americans, as this piece by Phillip Holmes indicates. The promise and peril of inter-ethnic dating and marriage has been a long-standing conversation in African-American communities, once because it was dangerous and illegal, then because it was socially frowned upon, and now because we’re slowly crawling toward some vision of ethnic conciliation.

But many people felt that Clark’s piece gave evidence to a massive blind spot—her failing to fully confess what appears to be deeper racial prejudice and her depiction of her son-in-law in a way that suggested he became “less Black” to her as she grew to love and accept him. Add to that the rather “teach-y” tone of the piece and many felt it was condescending as well as blind. The requisite internet furor resulted. Clark received the withering criticism so easily thrown at people online, but proved herself better than most of her detractors by listening, replying kindly, and eventually removing the piece.

I have asked TGC to remove my article from their website. I am profoundly grieved over the hurt and harm it has caused. Would covet prayers.

When I learned she’d decided to remove the piece (a move I respect but wish hadn’t happened), I decided someone should say something in praise of this woman and what happened. Having never met or spoken with her, here’s my feeble attempt. I hope it encourages her, her family, and the Church as we work through these things.

Taking the Risk

First, I want to express appreciation for Mrs. Clark for even writing the post. Let’s all be honest. There’s not much upside to writing something like this and there’s a whole lot of pitfalls along the way. Mrs. Clark stepped into one of those pitfalls, but her effort was commendable. In an age when so many African Americans rightly call on white brothers and sisters to enter the fray, Clark took the risk. She should be appreciated for doing so.

Being Redemptive

The other thing to note is her spirit in the post. Yes, it was “teach-y” in a problematic way. But that’s only at one or two points in the piece. The overwhelming bulk of the post sought to be God-centered, redemptive, and even helpful to those who might face the same challenge. Now, we could ask, “But why should it be a challenge in the first place?” In God’s kingdom it won’t be. But on earth, in the Church, among the fallen, it is. And Clark sought to be redemptive amidst all the ugliness we know still exists on this issue. I praise God for her.

Opening Up

Third, Clark didn’t have to write a post that excavated her own life. She could have written a post that took the detached, “objective,” professorial approach. She could have simply exegeted a few texts and “remained above the fray.” So I think it’s important to note that she actually laid bare a part of her own soul and life that no one is likely to give her any credit for. Who gets points for describing their latent or active prejudice? We tend to act as if no one should ever have believed those things ever, as if we’re not all works in progress. So when someone unearths the ugly of their lives for public consumption, it is not only courageous; it’s deeply honest. And while some of us would have loved a deeper reflection and confession, we all have to start somewhere. Clark started with her heart and in the process modeled for us why we should start with ours too. I thank her for that.

Taking the Heat

I truly admire Mrs. Clark for weathering the blowback she received. She set out to do good but pretty quickly folks began to speak evil of it. More often than not, social media types then double down. Rather than listen, we try to explain our intentions or offer hasty apologetics. Rarely do folks listen. And rarer still are apologies that communicate genuine understanding of the hurt caused. Ms. Clark did both. That’ll never satisfy the never-satisfied crowd, but it ought to be appreciated by all of us who know we too have flopped with our tongues. Mrs. Clark did all of this with Christ-like poise, grace and charity—thus proving the spirit behind the original post.

Advancing the Conversation

The reason I’d hoped TGC would not remove the post is the post actually triggered much-needed conversation. It wasn’t the conversation the author anticipated. But it was a meaningful one about how we describe our experiences and how we see each other. It was a much-needed conversation about affirming people as made in God’s image, and not having that image shrouded by either our own prejudices, ignorance, or expectations. The post, with its flaws, was probably doing more for the conversation than if it would have simply affirmed everyone in their presuppositions and left our weaknesses unchecked. I’m genuinely happy for any way anybody advances these conversations with the kind of grace Mrs. Clark did.

Appreciating the Church

Very few people are likely to have known much about Mrs. Clark’s Christian witness and discipleship. Many of us would have rushed to assumptions based upon this one post. We would have been tempted to place her in the box we have for “such people,” slapped the lid on, and slid her in the attic with all those “others” we don’t want to hear from. While I don’t know Gaye Clark personally, I do know her pastor and her church. And I know the kind of courageous leadership her pastor shows on these very issues on the regular in his church. He has African-American pastors and preachers in regularly—exposing his congregation to the gifts and perspectives these leaders bring. Leaders like K. Edward Copeland, who works on justice issues on the ground in partnership with local law enforcement, the community, his church and many others, and who speaks prophetically and unapologetically on the “platforms” the Lord gives. In other words, Mrs. Clark’s willingness to speak to these issues must surely come in part because she’s being discipled by white gospel leaders who willingly have the conversation as a matter of pro-active care for their members and for people affected by injustice. When we throw Mrs. Clark away, we risk throwing away a good church and good men trying to do good work in the name of our good Lord. I’m learning to speak a little less critically at first and more carefully at length.

CONCLUSION

There’s more that could be said about the various strengths and weaknesses of the post. But it’s perhaps best to simply say not one of us has “arrived” on these issues such that we speak without flaws. If that were true, we’d be the perfect persons that bridle our tongues that James seems to think doesn’t exist. I don’t want my sister to be vilified for doing what we’ve all done and what we’ll all likely do in the future. I hope we can remember her for making an honest attempt and giving a humble response when challenged.

A final thing for those who see the reaction to Mrs. Clark’s post and think, If that’s how I’m likely to be treated, why bother? Well, you bother not because you anticipate good treatment. You bother because it’s the right thing to do and it honors your Lord. And you bother because you know that if that’s how they treated Jesus for doing good, then that’s how they’ll treat you. And you bother out of love for your fellow human beings and your brethren in Christ. Let love constrain you even when there’s no praise to maintain you. After all, your ethnic brethren who dare speak of these things are quite accustomed to receiving a lot of vitriol, “push back,” condemnation, accusation and the like when we speak. And there was a time we even would have been killed for speaking. We’ve made progress, but for further progress you’ve got to put some skin in the game and not quit. Man up. We trust in Christ that it’s worth it.

]]>https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/in-praise-of-gaye-clark-and-others-like-her/feed/0Apologies, Clarifications, and Slaveryhttps://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/apologies-clarifications-and-slavery/
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/apologies-clarifications-and-slavery/#respondWed, 03 Aug 2016 04:00:00 +0000http://tgcstaging.wpengine.com/thabiti-anyabwile/apologies-clarifications-and-slavery/Note: The views and opinions expressed here do not necessarily represent TGC or any of its council members, staff or supporters. They are the views of the author alone. This is a personal blog that happens to be hosted at TGC. Such hosting should not be construed as an endorsement from TGC for anything written here.

Doug Wilson and I seem to manage having good conversations about difficult things. In all my online interactions, Wilson has consistently done two things: fairly represent me and graciously challenge me. I know he takes a lot of hits from a lot of people. And, frankly, I think some of them may be deserved. But I can’t say he’s unwilling to engage. In fact, with me at least, he’s been willing to engage in a way that brings light along with the occasional sparks.

And, there’s a side of me that likes talking to Doug because he stands flat-footed on what he thinks. Now, I find him incorrigible at points, but I can’t ever say he’s written to me with anything other than honesty and an owning of his position, even (especially!) the positions he knows most others find reprehensible. Say what you like, he’s been an honest discussion partner thus far and I have no reason to expect anything different in any future exchanges we may have.

So, let me start with something that given our history of exchanges is easy to do. I want to apologize for misunderstanding Doug’s reference to “Chicago” in his last post. I’ve heard “Chicago” mentioned as an indictment of Black people from so many white professing Christian evangelicals that my instinct is to assume the worst whenever someone fitting that profile uses it. The Black citizens of Chicago’s toughest, hurting neighborhoods are now, it seems to me, the favorite trope and retort of some conservatives wishing to “prove” Black pathology, dysfunction, irresponsibility, and to absolve themselves of any complicity or Christian charity in the struggles of Black communities. I confess. When I read Doug’s mention I filled in all those things in my reaction. In doing so I assigned motives and thoughts that weren’t warranted. Doug, for that, I am sorry and ask your forgiveness.

Wayne, Doug, and Me

Now, in the last week quite a number of people have mentioned Wayne Grudem, Doug Wilson, and myself in the same breath. It’s a long breath because I have a long polysyllabic name. But it’s understandable. Dr. Grudem and I fell off opposite sides of the horse on the whole Clinton-Trump contest. Many people have said he and I are “doing essentially the same thing” in choosing “the lesser of two evils.”

Now, I reject the notion that we are doing the same thing at every point. And Doug’s post responding to Grudem tells you why. I have consistently expressed my disdain for both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump as candidates and for their positions on various things. If you even skim my posts, you’ll find me repeatedly saying, “I think they’re both representing evil positions, and am not using the term ‘evil’ as hyperbole.” I am not calling evil good or calling black white. And that is what I think my brother Wayne Grudem has done in calling Mr. Trump “a good candidate with flaws.” For me, that’s a fundamental difference in our starting points, and I want to make that clear.

Ending Odds

Doug’s recent post also clarifies another point where I misunderstood him. He writes:

I believe that this state of affairs is very much the judgment of God upon us. I do not believe that we have the luxury of trying to “manage” a judgment. Our response to judgment ought to be the kind of response that God calls for in Scripture. Preachers ought to stop apologizing for the Bible, and take the law of God the way we take our whiskey, which is straight, and having done so, we need to preach a hot gospel. There is no other way out for us. There is no Savior but Jesus. There will be no cultural restoration without a massive reformation.

I answer a hearty “Amen!” to all of that. So Doug and I are not at adds about what has befallen the country in this election or the urgent need for true gospel preaching in this time. Again, amen!

Returning the Favor

Now at this point, I should also clarify my position lest I continue to be misunderstood. Judging from the comment section of my last post and Doug’s last reply, some people think I’m saying:

Vote for Mrs. Clinton if you want to slow the progress of evil.

Taken that way, I understand why people might think I’m a special multi-flavored variety of insane. If you oppose abortion, for example, who could believe that Mrs. Clinton would be a friend to protecting unborn children or that she might flip flop mid-term to call for an end to Roe?

I certainly don’t believe that. So let me state what I am saying in what I hope is greater clarity. I’ll offer it in staggered phrases because each phrase matters.

In an election with two evil choices and destructive outcomes likely to follow . . .

. . . where one candidate is conventional and rather predictable . . .

. . . and the other candidate is, to put it mildly, nuts and shows no signs of being influenced by reason or law . . .

. . . and your side is better and practiced at defending against the conventional candidate . . .

. . . it makes sense to me to vote for the conventional candidate you can effectively limit or oppose so that you at least slow the progress of evil.

Now, in this way of thinking, I’m most certainly not trusting Clinton. I am, rather, putting a modicum of trust in the governing process itself and in “our side” to build road blocks, tear down trees across the path, and generally sabotage things along the way. Frankly, I think such stonewalling, sabotaging, and subversion is the one thing conservatives/Republicans/Evangelicals and the like are still good at.

Now, if any of those points proves untrue, then the whole chain of reasoning falls down. I get that. I hear people when they say that. I do indeed consider those opposing views and push back. But that’s my estimate right now.

What I’d say to those who lean Trump is merely this: What if I’m right about Trump? If the good guys line up with a bad guy like Trump, where will the credibility, power, or even will exist among the co-opted to halt his evil? I think it would be gone, and a fair amount of it already is. And this is why I better understand the third party voters and the abstainers more than I do the Trump supporters. But that’s just me.

Finally, I am only talking about the act of voting with all of this. I don’t take any of us to be addressing all the other actions more substantive than voting that should be taken to discourage and finally end abortion, racism, and the like. Some seem to think a guy who hasn’t voted in the last few elections has come out of hiding to put all his hopes in voting or a president. I assure you that is not the case. A vote is a rather precious privilege with rather little promise for bringing the eschaton.

What Wilson Gets Right about Slavery

I wish Doug would understand a number of things about slavery better than I think he does. I’ll mention one in a moment. But first, it needs to be said that he does get one thing correct that everyone else should admit with greater frequency. The infallible, inerrant, sufficient and authoritative Bible we Christians all claim to love does have some rather awkward texts addressed to slaves and masters. If we take our Bibles seriously, then we have to address those texts seriously. And since quite a number of those texts are in New Testament epistles, we can’t hide under Old Testament covers. We gotta face the light. On that Wilson is correct.

And, for the record, I regularly have email and phone correspondence on the subject with well-meaning people—Black and White. People are wrestling with the texts in a proper context.

So let me pick my nit. Doug sees how these texts have been brought into the service of people wanting to jettison biblical morality at certain points in our culture. They say “what about slavery” as a way of undermining the Bible so they can go on unimpeded in their rebellion. He’s right about that tendency among some. What I wish he saw or perhaps sees and would be more careful about are the legions of African Americans for whom the topic of slavery is a stumbling block to even considering the claims of Christ. Slavery is an everyday apologetic issue we face in our community. It’s not merely a hermeneutic slope on which some people slip. It’s painful family history, a living legacy, an exploitation with lasting consequence. There are no shortage of people who read American policy toward African Americans as first exploit through enslavement, then export back to Africa, failing that exclude from Civil Rights, and now exterminate with guns, drugs, and incarceration. That’s American history read in tooth and claw by people who know the lacerations of teeth and claws.

So I wish Doug wrote in a way that attempted to disarm that audience so that those of us serving in those fields would have a slightly easier time offering an apologetic against slavery’s historical abuses without having a co-belligerent in the gospel seemingly giving contemporary credence to the evil.

As I said before, I take Doug at his word when he says he is no fan of slavery and is glad for its abolition. I just wish he didn’t wrestle with that issue with African Americans when we are wrestling with other issues—like voting. I wish he wouldn’t insert it where it doesn’t belong, and would more often allow us to decide where it doesn’t belong. For unless we put slavery in the title of the event, you can be sure that most of us aren’t looking to talk about it and will be offended when someone seems to be justifying it on any level. It’s hard to give a hearing when shackles rattle in your ears.

]]>https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/apologies-clarifications-and-slavery/feed/0Always Get More Than One Estimatehttps://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/always-get-more-than-one-estimate/
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/always-get-more-than-one-estimate/#respondTue, 02 Aug 2016 04:00:00 +0000http://tgcstaging.wpengine.com/thabiti-anyabwile/always-get-more-than-one-estimate/If I can’t beg off of debates about the election, Doug Wilson surely can’t silence dissent to his ideas about slavery’s end by pointing to my estimations while ignoring his own.]]>

Note: The views and opinions expressed here do not necessarily represent TGC or any of its council members, staff or supporters. They are the views of the author alone. This is a personal blog that happens to be hosted at TGC. Such hosting should not be construed as an endorsement from TGC for anything written here.

Doug Wilson has paid me a double kindness. First, he’s taken the time to interact substantively with this post where I posit a vote for Clinton appears to me to be the only way I can incrementally restrain the progress of evil in this election. Second, he’s taken the time to state fairly that I am not in any way “endorsing” or “supporting” Clinton in that post, as some have consistently and erroneously repeated. I’m grateful, Doug, on both counts.

But I must confess I’m not persuaded by your post, as thoughtful as it was. I think I was most helpfully challenged when you contended that having not voted for several elections it would have been wiser for me to continue that course. That’s something I’ve gone back and forth on and it was good to have someone push me in that direction once again. Thank you.

But as I said earlier, I wasn’t persuaded by Doug’s post. Here’s why:

In My Estimation . . .

Central to Doug’s critique of my post is the notion that making estimates about probable outcomes is a faulty way to engage the political process.

Huh . . .

But estimating outcomes is what we all do all the time in voting behavior. Take a candidate who shares our deepest values and acts on them. We effectively estimate their future actions. We think past behavior indicates future performance, all those mutual fund warnings to the contrary be damned.

This stubborn, intractable habit of making estimates takes place even when we abstain from voting for candidates with undeniably bad character and deeds to match. In those cases, too, our abstention relies on estimating the likelihood that they will keep up their bad behavior and continue in bad character. So even when we abstain, we’re not solely considering character. We cast an eye toward an imagined future. We conclude, “I cannot comply with this evil person or position because,” well, “…‘estimated future evil.’”

So everyone makes estimates. But wait . . . there’s more.

When Doug injects slavery into the discussion with an odd paragraph or two—and to borrow from Mrs. Clinton, “they were odd”—guess what he does? He argues that gradual manumission of slaves would have been better than a violent Civil War claiming hundreds of thousands of lives. (I presume he means white lives matter because apparently black lives could continue being slaughtered in the evil of slavery until white folks decided slaves were obsolete farm equipment.) But on what basis does Mr. Wilson think this? Surprise, surprise: His estimate that the grand ol’ South was gonna get ‘round to freeing the slaves anyway . . . good Christian slaveholders they were and all. Mr. Wilson’s reasoning rests on fantastically shoddy estimates more rosy about slavery than I am about Mrs. Clinton!

So you see, there’s a whole lot of lumber and sawdust clouding eyes in this entire line of reasoning.

Since Doug has his estimates, I’ll go on rejecting gradual anti-slavery proposals bizarrely offered 150 years after the War. And I’ll reject those proposals in part because I estimate that such curious ideas put us back on the path of saying “slavery was okay” when every Christian ought to be praising God for providentially ending this nation’s original birth defect. The Lord not only ended the institution, He also banished a host of social ills and fallen thoughts that undergirded it. Christians should shout aloud with gladness that these things have ceased, not trot them out for reconsideration. If I can’t beg off of debates about the election, Doug surely can’t silence dissent to his ideas about slavery’s end by pointing to my estimations while ignoring his own.

Now Back to the Election at Hand

We live—and always have—in a house with a busted roof and rotten flooring. We are taking on water from daily torrential rains and trying to keep our favorite fuzzy slippers dry while walking on mud floors. Doug wants us to pretend we can live in this condemned building unstained and inactive while the mold grows up on everything sitting still. He suggests we ready ourselves for bigger battles—which he’s correct, surely will come—and sit this current skirmish out, enjoying the rain reflected in the moonlight through that gaping roof and the mud squishing between our earthen toes. Well, in the south Doug loves so much, we commend folks “with sense enough to come in out of the rain.” To all others we offer our rather southern, “God bless your heart.”

You see, in the south, we know something about common sense, horse trading and all. And we know that if you live in a house with a busted roof, you can’t sit out enough pots and buckets to catch all the rain while you wait it out for a few years. You gotta hire a contractor and fix the roof, honey. Now, we also know that it’s better not to hire the fast talking, fancy dressed, over-promising, never licensed or bonded, pay me with cash before you see my work “contractor.” That fella is from New York City and it doesn’t matter if he claims, “Only I can fix it.” We know to keep our hands and our money in our pockets while we spit a rather sticky brown glob of tobacco juice on those pretty Gucci wing tips. We will fix our decaying house with a pinch of homespun wisdom and grit, thank you.

Now to be sure, this rotten electoral house of ours includes the stench of death. It’s a wonder we can live in this odor. Buried in our cellars and locked in our attics are the slaughtered-while-still-developing bodies of our babies. They were killed in the womb, before light could ever warm their wondrous faces. Their blood cries out against our house and our land—and the Lord God Almighty hears them!

But if we genuinely care about all of that, and I take it that every genuine Christian and person of awakened conscience does, then there are some hard questions us pro-lifers and those single-issue voters must face. There are some estimates to make in addition to the estimated number of children likely to be aborted.

First, we must ask, “Is there a meaningful difference between the candidates on abortion?” From where I sit, there’s none. Trump, who financially supported the murderous Clinton in her earlier campaigns, is no pro-life champion. Ending abortion is not even a meaningful part of his campaign, and, consequently, as head of the party, it’s no longer a meaningful part of the GOP platform.

So we move on to ask ourselves a second question: “But what about SCOTUS appointments? Won’t that help?” I get why some people hold a flicker of hope that he just might appoint some judges that just might do something to reverse Roe. And I’m not in the habit of blowing out a man’s candle when it’s his desperate cling to light in a dark world. But, shoot. I just don’t see it. You’d have to estimate that Trump would keep his word and stay the course. Okay. That’s not really an estimate, is it? That’s more like blind wishful thinking when the man changes his mind more times than Beyonce changes concert outfits. And like Beyonce, this emperor isn’t wearing any clothes! But let’s say you did estimate some constancy from the man on SCOTUS appointments. Then you’d have to assume Trump would appoint judges who respect the Constitution. But why would we assume that when he doesn’t appear to even have read the dang on document or to respect it himself, when he doesn’t respect competent sitting judges if they have Mexican heritage, and doesn’t respect former POWs like John McCain or fallen soldiers like Mr. Khan who risk and give their lives protecting the U.S. and the Constitution? Friends, don’t buy your picante sauce from New York City!

Then there’s a third question: “So what is a pro-lifer or single-issue voter to do when they have no candidate and they take the present evil seriously?” Mr. Wilson thinks I should have remained in the quiet, detached position of abstaining as I did in previous elections. But I can’t help making estimates, otherwise known as calculated judgments, or to use a biblical phrase, “counting the costs.” Now it seems to me a great many of those who say #NeverTrumpNeverHillary are, in a sense, making worried estimates about preserving their own “innocence” in all of this. And it seems to me that they’re not only estimating the evil consequences that may come from voting, but also estimating their own righteousness for not voting. It’s that latter estimation that I find particularly problematic in this election—if we take seriously the notion that either vote ends in a set of evil outcomes. For we can’t wash our hands of the election and decree our own righteousness while standing by doing nothing as admitted evil makes its progress. I don’t think Jesus will be very impressed with any of the ways His people stand by while identifiable wrong advances. It wasn’t praised in the Pharisees and scribes, and I highly doubt it’ll be praised among evanjellyfish either. Doug mentioned “other strategies” we have. I think he’d better serve the church writing about those strategies, because they seem preciously few nowadays.

But if this is “a battle enjoined” as Wilson put it, then there aren’t going to be any “innocents,” beloved. Who can lift up clean hands if they see murder practiced apace and don’t at least try to slow it? You see, the estimates of this war include the lives of babies unborn—nearly 3 million in the next four years. But it also includes other costs we’re bound to face: further erosion of constitutional authority, deeper divisions along ethnic lines, a return to Neanderthal attitudes toward women, restrictions of religious liberties, curtailing of civil rights, and a host of others. Count all the costs. You’ll likely conclude you’re warring against a king’s army several times larger than your own. Offensive strikes will look silly and ill-conceived. You’re down to defense. So put out your best defenses. Do what you must to hold the line as best you can. Clearly we aren’t going to win the war with either candidate in the next four years. But can we limit or slow the damage? Is there a candidate against whom we have a stronger defense? I know that’s gradualist thinking, but Doug is a gradualist with slavery so he ought to be one with abortion, too.

It’s all really very simple. The oft cited “All that’s needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing” is spot on. Doing nothing is not an option. So estimating becomes necessary. We must read the prospectus and decide, despite the fine print, whether we think past performance tells us anything about future results. And for my part, I’ve taken the rather pedestrian position that we know how to play defense with a conventional politician (Clinton), but we’ve never seen the likes of candidate Trump who blows hard where he wills and changes directions before his breath has stilled.

I think we can at least restrain evil in this election, even if we can’t positively foster the good. Those who would rather not dirty their hands and feign a position of innocence have to give an account for how they are trying to do at least that much—restraining what should be restrained even if they can’t altogether defeat it. If a person can’t do that, then they should probably ask the Lord to search their heart for ethical sinkholes.

As I’ve written elsewhere (see here, skip to the bottom if you like), knowing GOP and evangelical antipathy toward all things Clinton, and considering her utterly unoriginal, predictable, and conventional career, I estimate we can better oppose a “President Clinton” than a “President Trump,” who is impervious to counsel or correction, has the emotional stability of a 2-year-old, and eviscerates any claims to moral high ground for anyone who actively supports or endorses him.

And Then There’s Chicago

Now I really should end this post here, but there’s so much in Wilson’s critique that needs answering. And I shouldn’t end before making a brief comment on his use of Chicago and all the troubles there.

Doug, you really should consider going to Chicago and working on issues there. You seem to love evoking the carnage and suffering there, but I can’t find a place where you demonstrate much compassion and investment. The shame game you seem to be running is tired. The more you talk about it the more you seem to politicize it rather than offer anything. I know good people there who live and work in the community you so easily use as the poster community for Black dysfunction. Like the woman who just picked me up from the airport. Her family moved to Chicago when she was 10, probably on the tail end of the Great Migration. They’ve been in Christian ministry in that city for 30 years. They live, work, worship, and serve there with great concern for the community. I don’t think your comments help people like this sister and her husband one bit.

Of course, do as you wish. But my counsel would be leave it alone until you get over some tone deafness and can communicate some Christian empathy in the proper conversations.

Now I’ll Hush Up

So to conclude, we can no more live without making estimates than a fish can live without water. Indeed we swim in estimates—from how long our morning commute is likely to be, to how faithful a potential spouse is apt to behave, to whether it’s worth anyone’s time to read a blog. Indeed, walking by faith may just be the biggest estimate of all, and yet the Lord requires we do so, contra the assertion that lacking crystal balls means we should have none at all.

]]>https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/always-get-more-than-one-estimate/feed/0Lord, Give Us the Faith of a Nine-Year Old Girl!https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/lord-give-us-the-faith-of-a-nine-year-old-girl/
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/lord-give-us-the-faith-of-a-nine-year-old-girl/#respondTue, 26 Jul 2016 04:00:00 +0000http://tgcstaging.wpengine.com/thabiti-anyabwile/lord-give-us-the-faith-of-a-nine-year-old-girl/ Note: The views and opinions expressed here do not necessarily represent TGC or any of its council members, staff or supporters. They are the views of the author alone. This is a personal blog that happens to be hosted at TGC. Such hosting should not be construed as an endorsement from TGC for anything written here. A couple of weeks ago I had the privilege of joining a conference of Acts 29 pastors and wives at their retreat. The theme of the conference was revival. Honestly, I can’t think of anything more important to seek as Christians than a fresh...]]>Lightstock

Note: The views and opinions expressed here do not necessarily represent TGC or any of its council members, staff or supporters. They are the views of the author alone. This is a personal blog that happens to be hosted at TGC. Such hosting should not be construed as an endorsement from TGC for anything written here.

A couple of weeks ago I had the privilege of joining a conference of Acts 29 pastors and wives at their retreat. The theme of the conference was revival. Honestly, I can’t think of anything more important to seek as Christians than a fresh outpouring of God the Holy Spirit on the Church and on our communities. No single act of God short of the Second Coming of Jesus Christ could do more for our souls and our world than a visitation of God’s Spirit in power!

In the early 1800s, a revival broke out among Baptist churches in Vermont (among other places). Pastor Silvanus Haynes wrote an account of a nine year old girl who attended a meeting to relay her conversion experience. Here’s the back-and-forth between Haynes, working to be careful with the girl’s soul, and the young girl.

Haynes: You tell us about being so great a sinner; what have you done that is so bad?

Girl [after a short pause]: I do not know as my outward conduct has been worse than many others, but my heart is so wicked!

Haynes: You tell about God’s law being so good and just, but do you know the nature of that law?

Girl: That law is so severe that it will curse and condemn a person for ever for only committing one sin, unless he repents of it, and applies to Christ for pardon.

Haynes [in a serious tone]: Would it not be better to have that law altered a little, and not have it so severe?

Girl: No, Sir, not at all, it is not too strict.

Haynes: But you tell us that you love God; and this God can thunder when he pleases, and dash the world to atoms in a moment, and are you not afraid of him?

Girl: I used to be afraid of him, but now I love him.

Haynes: But do you know the nature of this God?

Girl: He is so holy that he does not allow people to commit one sin, and if they sin but once, he will send them to hell if they do not repent and apply to Christ.

Haynes: Would it not be really better if God were altered a little, so as not to be quite so strict with us?

Girl: No, Sir, he is just right, he is none too strict.

Haynes: But there must be some alteration somewhere or else such as we are can never enjoy the favour of God.

Girl: I need all the altering.

Haynes: Why do you love God?

Girl: Because he is so holy and so just.

Haynes: But you tell about going to heaven, and what do you wish to go there for?

Girl: To praise God.

Haynes: But what do you want to praise him for?

Girl: Because he is so holy, and so just.

Haynes: Well, and what if you should go to heaven, and God should tell you that you might forever enjoy those pearly walls, and golden streets, and have the company of saints and angels, and join and sing with them to all eternity; but I must go away to another heaven a great many million miles off; now, would not heaven be just as good without God, as with him?

Girl [pausing a moment]: It would be no heaven at all!

Haynes tells us that this nine-year-old girl joined the church not long after and remained in good standing ever since. Oh, how I wish the Spirit would give such holy knowledge of the Lord to children and adults in our neighborhood today!

I’ve continued to meditate on revival and I’m hoping to begin leading our church family in regular prayer for it. What about you?

]]>https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/lord-give-us-the-faith-of-a-nine-year-old-girl/feed/0God Is Good; We Should Be Toohttps://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/god-is-good-we-should-be-too/
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/god-is-good-we-should-be-too/#respondMon, 13 Jun 2016 04:00:00 +0000http://tgcstaging.wpengine.com/thabiti-anyabwile/god-is-good-we-should-be-too/Note: The views and opinions expressed here do not necessarily represent TGC or any of its council members, staff or supporters. They are the views of the author alone. This is a personal blog that happens to be hosted at TGC. Such hosting should not be construed as an endorsement from TGC for anything written here. I have a friend who loves to say, “God is good.” Sometimes he tweets it. He often ends emails with it. And it’s a fitting reminder. God is good. But what do we mean when we say “God is good”? Are we referring to the...]]>

Note: The views and opinions expressed here do not necessarily represent TGC or any of its council members, staff or supporters. They are the views of the author alone. This is a personal blog that happens to be hosted at TGC. Such hosting should not be construed as an endorsement from TGC for anything written here.

I have a friend who loves to say, “God is good.” Sometimes he tweets it. He often ends emails with it. And it’s a fitting reminder. God is good.

But what do we mean when we say “God is good”? Are we referring to the Lord’s actions in the world and toward us? Are we referring to some aspect of His character? Do we have some sense that his goodness is like the warmth we feel when we visit our grandmother’s home?

John Frame in The Doctrine of God, reflecting on the limits of Thomist philosophy in the doctrine of God, writes:

What is God’s “goodness”? Is it something in him? It would be more accurate, I think, to say that “divine goodness,” though it sounds like an abstract property, is really just a way of referring to everything God is. For everything God does is good, and everything he is is good. All his attributes are good. All his decrees are good. All his actions are good. There is nothing in God that is not good.

To praise God’s goodness is not to praise something other than God himself. It is not to praise something less than him, or a part of him, so to speak. It is to praise him. God’s goodness is not something that is intelligible in itself, apart from everything else that God is.

God’s goodness is the standard for our goodness. We are to image his goodness. Does that mean that we are to image some abstract property that is somehow attached to God or present in him somewhere? No, it means that we are to image God himself. Our moral standard is not an impersonal, abstract property. It is a person, the living God. The center of biblical morality is that we should be like him. … God’s personal goodness defines any legitimate abstract concept of goodness.

John Frame, The Doctrine of God, pp. 229-230.

]]>https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/god-is-good-we-should-be-too/feed/0On Abortion and Racism: Why There Is a Greater Evil in This Electionhttps://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/on-abortion-and-racism-why-there-is-a-greater-evil-in-this-election/
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/on-abortion-and-racism-why-there-is-a-greater-evil-in-this-election/#respondTue, 07 Jun 2016 04:00:00 +0000http://tgcstaging.wpengine.com/thabiti-anyabwile/on-abortion-and-racism-why-there-is-a-greater-evil-in-this-election/Note: The views and opinions expressed here do not represent TGC or any of its council members, staff or supporters. They are the views of the author alone. This is a personal blog that happens to be hosted at TGC. Such hosting should not be construed as an endorsement from TGC for anything written here. The Uneasy Evangelical Ethnic Alliance It’s been more difficult to be an African-American and an “Evangelical” or “Reformed” these last few years. It was never an easily negotiated identity or space. But a certain quietude about matters of “race” and racism made it possible to enjoy...]]>

Note: The views and opinions expressed here do not represent TGC or any of its council members, staff or supporters. They are the views of the author alone. This is a personal blog that happens to be hosted at TGC. Such hosting should not be construed as an endorsement from TGC for anything written here.

The Uneasy Evangelical Ethnic Alliance

It’s been more difficult to be an African-American and an “Evangelical” or “Reformed” these last few years. It was never an easily negotiated identity or space. But a certain quietude about matters of “race” and racism made it possible to enjoy a measure of unity in theological matters and some seeming trust as spiritual family. A degree of political affinity, defined largely by the obvious wrongs we opposed, created a co-belligerence that kept our eyes off our differing political needs and emphases along ethnic lines. Suspicion and mistrust were kept at bay by a tacit sense that some things were more important.

For many, all of that is over, like childhood summers remembered fondly but blurring in the fading distance of time. Things are more difficult in the aftermath of Trayvon Martin, Mya Hall, Mike Brown, Alexia Christian, Tamir Rice, Meagan Hockaday, John Crawford, Sandra Bland, the Charleston Nine, Rekia Boyd, Eric Garner, Natasha McKenna, Freddie Gray. Things are less quiet following the various grand jury decisions that seemed once again to betray African-American pleas for a recognized humanity. Not that all those cases were the same or deserved the same outcome. They weren’t and didn’t. What was the same in each instance was the dreadful sense that African-American lives were nothing to be respected, protected or celebrated. What was largely the same in those instances was an encounter with what generally felt like white American and Christian indifference, antipathy and resentment. It didn’t matter if the life belonged to a 12-year old boy playing in a park or saints of various ages welcoming a stranger into their prayer meeting. The “respectable” and “dignified” were assaulted and the “unrespectable” and “undignified” further vilified and thuggerized. Many Christians felt that once again our best theology was failing to produce our best behavior—across the board, black and white, male and female.

The Trump Card Played at the Worst Time

Then came Trump.

We laughed at first. We thought it good theater. Then our laughter turned to unbelief. How could this man even be in the Republican primary, much less leading? Disbelief gave way to disdain toward those who filled stadiums supporting Trump. Who were they? Where were they coming from? Do they have an education—or teeth? So we questioned in our disdain and superiority. But they were there in the millions and—shockingly for some—they not only identified as Republicans but also “Evangelicals.” A lot of them.

Somewhere along the way some began to say #NeverTrump. But it was all too late. He’d bested every professional contender in the primary and was poised to receive the GOP nomination. He didn’t win on a technicality or through some bizarre trick with the rules. He won it outright and by a landslide. And the inevitable began to happen. GOP opponents, insiders, and king makers began to fall in line. They offered tail-tucked whimpers about problems with tone and not appearing “presidential.” But they fell in line nonetheless.

All of this happened, of course, while most of us were still catching our collective breath from the string of shootings, video playbacks, and debates about how to understand it all. When inter-ethnic tolerance and understanding were perhaps most stressed and frayed, along came a presidential candidate terrifyingly adept at strumming the chords of racial unrest, animosity, and resentment. And as one person put it: He didn’t use the silent dog whistle of racial resentment so common in politics; he simply whistled outright and out loud to gather the disaffected.

I try to be very judicious in calling anyone a “racist.” I recognize that label sticks, paralyzes and banishes. And I recognize that some overuse it. If you review this site, you’ll find that I’ve almost never used it of specific people. But, I don’t see another term to use for Mr. Trump. And I’m not alone.

As Speaker Paul Ryan illustrates, despite identifying “textbook racist” comments in Trump, the GOP will line up to support him. Even some Evangelicals who were #NeverTrump sound a lot more like #ProbablyTrump these days. Some of them offer a soft apologetic: “Clinton is just as bad;” “At least he’d appoint conservative SCOTUS justices;” “He’s not a career politician.”

Some of these retorts are offered to African Americans whenever we point out the racism endemic to the man’s candidacy and behavior. I’ve even been asked, “Which is worse? Abortion or racism?” Though they quickly add, “This is no defense of Trump,” it’s difficult to escape the conclusion that racism rests lightly on the oft-cited conscience of some Evangelicals.

Here’s the problem with living 50 years after the American Civil Rights Movement and the de jure segregation of the land that produced it: Too many people now have no idea how every-day-horrendous-and-perilous life was under that system. And if you can’t imagine the daily stresses and sudden endangerment faced by African Americans in that system, then chances are you can’t quite fathom the alarm that survivors or students of that period have when we look at a Mr. Trump. Chances are you don’t quite appreciate the consternation felt when a brother or sister in the Lord appears to make light of racism’s evil and effects. And failing to recognize these things, you may be vulnerable to sliding over to the Trump column without due consideration of the ugliness of racism.

You also might be vulnerable to lobbing charges of racism toward African Americans and others who oppose Trump. Just the other day, I received a kind note reporting to me the concerns that some Evangelicals have expressed about my writing regarding the election. I’ve heard all the concerns before. They go something like this, with variants of emphasis:

It’s un-Christian to vote for a Democrat.

Any consideration of a Democrat makes you a baby killer, a supporter of abortion.

Any positive mention of a Democrat means you’re endorsing them and all they stand for, especially the worse parts of their beliefs and platforms.

Abortion is the single greatest evil of our time, by which is usually meant, “Do not talk about any other issue as if it has importance.”

If you talk about any issue other than abortion, especially a “racial issue,” then you’re idolizing “race” and betraying the unborn.

You get the picture. The uneasy coalition of inter-ethnic Evangelical concern comes collapsing down. The problem, we are told, is the injection of “race” into “everything.” The problem, we are lead to believe, is that some people would dare break ranks with evangelicalism’s political orthodoxy—GOP loyalty and single-issue voting. The problem, we are told, is that African Americans need to quit bellyaching about racism and the mirage of systemic injustice and just get on with it. We are told these things by people who seem to steadily ignore or downplay the racial elements of this election. So the chorus grows.

Setting Back Reconciliation?

Then the African American is told that he or she has “set racial reconciliation back 10 years” or more. They’ve managed with a blog post to undo all the hard work good white folks and good black folks have done to achieve peace between the people groups.

My friend, if your “reconciliation” can be undone with a blog post then you were never reconciled in the first place. If a different, more inclusive set of issues or priorities pushes you from the table, you were never truly at the table in commitment. If the simple matter of voting differently and daring to speak of it publicly causes you “to lose all respect for someone,” then you never respected them in the first place. You respected the ways you thought they were like you and you “respected” them only insofar as they were like you. You didn’t respect the right of a person to have their own mind, think their own thoughts, or act in accord with their own conscience. They must act according to your conscience. You were not reconciled across that difference.

While an outward peace existed between the groups, you patted yourself on the back and took credit for being enlightened and gracious and loving. But such virtue made wings and flew away the moment you discovered—gasp!—that that person didn’t think like you at every point. While there was no cost or inconvenience to you, you could tell yourself that progress was being made and you were a part of it. As long as uncomfortable differences along ethnic lines were muted, you sang “Kumbaya.” But when an African American began to speak about how they really felt and thought, then the old man of white supremacy—the old man that insisted he never be questioned or accused in matters of “race” and the treatment of African Americans—that man came out of hiding to demand what he’d always felt entitled to: even the mental submission of Black people to his view of the world.

Friend, wherever the preceding paragraphs above are true or accurate, then reconciliation has not been set back. Rather, reconciliation has not really been achieved. There’s a massive difference between detente and peace.

But I’m so grateful to God that the above paragraphs do not apply to a great number of Evangelicals. I’m so thankful for the many, many Evangelicals who prove themselves brethren in the Lord precisely when disagreement and distrust emerge. Those are the Evangelicals who are friends to freedom, friends to life, and friends to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Those Evangelicals who say, “I disagree and I love you and I protect your right to say whatever” are the true inheritors of Christ’s love. And for them, I give God praise and continue to write in the hope that reasonable men will once again agree, disagree, concede, argue and debate with charity and mutual affirmation of one another’s dignity and humanity. And I write with the hope that a true, deep and lasting reconciliation might be achieved on a firmer basis, on the basis of Jesus Christ’s completed work on the cross and in the resurrection.

Racism’s Trump

Now, on to Trump and this question of abortion and racism. For those who can still listen and who will allow me the dignity of my own thoughts (and it should be clear that I’m not asking for that dignity but asserting it), here’s how I’m thinking about the charge that I am making more of “race” and racism than I am of abortion. In general, the charge is false. But, specifically, here’s the two-point outline of my thinking.

Single Issue Voters Have No Champion for Their Single Issue

Without doubt Mrs. Clinton proves herself to be an enemy of millions of lives in the womb. Without doubt she would do nothing to curb or eliminate the abominable practice. We know that.

However, I don’t see Mr. Trump doing a thing to limit abortion or roll it back either. Not a thing. He hasn’t even made it a campaign issue. And when he’s spoken about it he’s changed his position several times IN ONE DAY. He’s not a champion I would trust.

You see, the choice is not between Hilary’s zeal for abortion and Trump’s bigotry—as if Trump were better on abortion and Clinton better on racism. There’s no tradeoff here. The two, in my opinion, are a push on abortion.

There’s At Least One Other Issue to Add to the Single Issue Nobody Champions

Now, if neither Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. Trump will change or challenge our laws making abortion legal, then the question for me is: “What are the other set of issues these guys bring to the table?

That’s where racism gains more prominence and Trump’s open statements of bigotry and his intent to put some of it into policy becomes unbearable. When we recognize that Clinton and Trump are a push on abortion, then the message becomes, “Voter, you’re going to have abortion for the next four years either way you go. Do you want abortion and a 1950s America where racism and sexism abounded’?” That’s the question for me. And I think that’s exactly what you’d get in a “President Trump”: abortion + racism.

Again, Mr. Trump’s comments are not merely individual sentiment and personal animosity. His comments go directly to policy: register Muslims, walls against Mexicans because “they’re rapists,” questioning a judge’s competence because of his ethnicity, and so on. He’s suggesting clear religious and civil liberty violations become the law of the land. Nevermind setting reconciliation back ten years; this is setting law back sixty! This is not making America great again; it’s making America racist again.

And, oh by the way, a “President Trump” would have the help of a GOP that itself has been a refuge for far too long for racist sentiment. When neo-con architects like Karl Rove feel comfortable telling Black women they should be more thankful because he “freed them” and gave them the right to vote (see here), we shouldn’t be surprised that there are millions of minions frothing with even worse diatribe. For too long the GOP has been home to this kind of thing and I wouldn’t want the party invested with Presidential power to act on it.

Now, my suggesting I’d vote for Mrs. Clinton in order to stop the twin evils that Mr. Trump represents is no more an endorsement of Mrs. Clinton or the Democratic party than our Lord Jesus Christ telling His audience to pay taxes to Caesar was an endorsement of Caesar or of emperor worship. Most every reader who earns a wage pays their taxes without the slightest qualms about their money being an “endorsement” of this government’s every action or policy. I don’t endorse Clinton or her views on abortion, sexuality and a host of other things. Claims to the contrary are simply a disingenuous effort to skip the discussion by sullying the writer. That won’t do. There’s a greater evil afoot than my particular leaning when it comes to voting in this election. The real evils abroad are murder, racism and sexism. And I feel I must do something, however marginal, to hold the line as best as possible. I trust you do, too, even if you choose a different “something” to do.

American Idols

Now if my including racism in my thinking is “idolatry,” well, so be it. But, frankly, I don’t think it is. And if it is, then we’d best recognize it’s a kind of shadow idol, the dark negative of much of white America’s idolization of its own whiteness. Racial idolatry comes in twin packs at least. It’s been that way from the moment some founders and denizens decided that whiteness would be privileged among all the so-called “races” and advantages would be given to “whites” over all others, at the expense of all others. They built their shrine to themselves and their skin color while effectively guaranteeing others would do likewise if for no other reason than survival. Logs and specks need to be checked at our own eyes.

Further, I think the folks who can only talk about abortion and can’t factor anything else into their decisions are guilty of another form of idolatry. Some make a tremendously important moral issue a “god” of sorts. Further, some make their conscience an idol by obeying their conscience instead of the whole counsel of God. For surely the Bible condemns hatred, partiality and the failure to love as much as murder. Wherever we set one part of God’s word aside with claims of conscience, then we make conscience “god.”

And we shouldn’t lose sight of this fact either: This idolizing of abortion has come at the teaching, preaching and advocacy of pastors and leaders. Some are offended that I’ve dare say these things “as a pastor.” But the church has been political for a long time and telling people how to vote for a long time. Sure, most avoided naming any candidate. But strong insistence that we only consider one issue and refuse voting for anyone who isn’t anti-abortion is, in fact, an attempt at binding the conscience in a political way in political elections. Insofar as one party has officially stood against abortion, then it’s also been a partisan binding of the conscience. That’s why so many today can’t even imagine a pro-life Democrat and can’t imagine participation in the party with the goal of changing its platform. Though the cause is just, wherever we pastors have gone too far in insisting that people’s consciences conform to our own, we’ve fostered idolatry and weakened the ability of many to consider and negotiate more complex realities.

None of this is to minimize abortion; it’s to say some have over-reached if they can’t negotiate a world where other things are on the table alongside this issue.

So, there are a lot of idols to avoid and to smash. Political parties, racial identities, moral issues and even the conscience can usurp the place of God in our lives.

CONCLUSION

Let me conclude by asking, “So what if I did ‘care more about race issues than abortion’?” What if I did think a situation or system of constant racial antagonism or outright oppression were a daily existential problem for African Americans that needed redress? Why would caring about something that affects your entire life and daily living be idolatry? And why would the white evangelical who cares about abortions that in many cases touch conscience but not their actual lives not be idolatry? Who decides that?

I’m doing my imperfect best to respond to the world as I see it unfolding. It’s an election where I take seriously the term “evil” and it’s application to the actions and policies of both candidates. If I could stop it all, I would. I can’t. I respect those who will choose to sit out the election and I wouldn’t want them to violate their conscience where God’s word is silent (see here). But my conscience finds no safe refuge in sitting out the election. I feel compelled to oppose as much as I can as effectively as I can. That means working to stop Trump in a field where there are no other viable options other than Clinton. Here I stand; so help me God.

]]>https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/on-abortion-and-racism-why-there-is-a-greater-evil-in-this-election/feed/0Can We Talk? Or, Why I Think a Trump Presidency Is Intolerable Even Though You Might Not Agreehttps://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/can-we-talk-or-why-i-think-a-trump-presidency-is-intolerable-even-though-you-might-not-agree/
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/can-we-talk-or-why-i-think-a-trump-presidency-is-intolerable-even-though-you-might-not-agree/#respondMon, 06 Jun 2016 04:00:00 +0000http://tgcstaging.wpengine.com/thabiti-anyabwile/can-we-talk-or-why-i-think-a-trump-presidency-is-intolerable-even-though-you-might-not-agree/Note: The views and opinions expressed here do not represent TGC or any of its council members, staff or supporters. They are the views of the author alone. This is a personal blog that happens to be hosted at TGC. Such hosting should not be construed as an endorsement from TGC for anything written here. I’ve made a mental start to this post more times than I can count. But each time I wad it into a ball of imaginary paper to shoot hoops into a mirage wastebasket. The problem isn’t so much writer’s block or not knowing what I...]]>

Note: The views and opinions expressed here do not represent TGC or any of its council members, staff or supporters. They are the views of the author alone. This is a personal blog that happens to be hosted at TGC. Such hosting should not be construed as an endorsement from TGC for anything written here.

I’ve made a mental start to this post more times than I can count. But each time I wad it into a ball of imaginary paper to shoot hoops into a mirage wastebasket. The problem isn’t so much writer’s block or not knowing what I want to say. The problem is attending to the easily predictable “outrage” and “disgust” and attempts at shaming for “even thinking such a thing.”

How do you write for an audience that really wants to ban any thinking other than its own? How do you make a case for something different with people who seem to accept their political orthodoxy as equivalent to gospel faithfulness? Is it possible to effectively engage people who think their Christian bona fides are shored up by assaulting yours?

Well, I’ve decided I can’t. So if those questions describe you, this post isn’t for you. You are, of course, welcome here. And I hope something here changes your mind about how to talk with others even if it does nothing to change your position. In fact, I’m really quite happy if my muddled thought experiment drives you deeper into your prior position with more reasons for it. That’s a win. That’s what public discourse has sometimes done. But if you feel like you need to drop the partisan equivalent of a rhetorical dirty bomb or denounce me as some kind of heretic, then I’m afraid you may live beyond the city limits of reason and this post isn’t for you. This would be a good time to write me off and head elsewhere.

This post is for that larger percentage of the Christian public that actually feels little threat from differing opinion, even benefits from it. This post is for folks who can affirm a brother as a brother while pushing back—even pushing back hard. What follows are ramblings for people who can keep the plot when it’s messy and think there’s virtue in civic disagreement. I don’t blog as regularly as I used to. I don’t have time and I don’t generally have interest. But for the entirety of my blogging life I’ve tried to talk with people, not at them or about them. If you’ve benefitted from that and want to share in that, then by all means join the conversation.

So on to what I want to say. I recently published a post from a Christian brother, friend and church mate who argued that the candidacy of Mr. Trump is so potentially catastrophic that Christian leaders should try influencing people toward Clinton. What’s remarkable about that post—besides the obvious “anti-Evangelical heresy” of voting for Clinton—is that the post comes from someone discipled out of the Democratic party precisely because he was taught and challenged about abortion. In other words, his story is the kind of story we conservative Evangelicals actually wish was more common. Don’t we?

Gauging Our Reactions

But the reaction to Nick’s post demonstrates at least three things for me:

We actually have so little tolerance for political disagreement (not theological, which might be more understandable) that we eliminate room and patience for the kinds of conversion and growth we hope to see.

Our political vitriol becomes a barrier to our sanctification and that of others. From a Christian perspective, voting is above all a discipleship issue. But to disciple well, people have to be able to think out loud, risk enough honesty to reveal their weaknesses, and receive patience from others so they can grow. See 2 Timothy 2:24ff. Apparently Evangelicals ain’t there yet. There was zero rejoicing that a young man who all his life had been a pro-choice Democrat, actually grew in his knowledge of the scripture and conviction to the point that he became a pro-life independent. Surely angels in heaven were rejoicing, but not all of us on earth were. We’ve got to get better at engaging political difference so we can actually have wins in sanctification.

Sometimes the way Christians represent others can be more abhorrent than the bad positions we rightly reject.

Some people call uncharitable (mis)representations “faithfulness” and “courage.” It’s not. It’s sinful. It fails the tests of Eph. 4:29; Col. 4:6; Matt. 12:36 and a host of other texts. And many times it’s bearing false witness about someone (Ex. 20:16; 23:1; Prov. 12:17; 25:18; passim). Personally, I have to repent of the ways I’ve done this—even unintentionally (Lev. 4). Part of my repentance includes writing more charitably about others while challenging uncharitable (mis)representations. It cannot be the case that Christians deal with difference by attempting to shut down, shout down, or make others stand down through libel, slander, vitriol, etc. And it cannot be the case that we stand by while others do it.

It may be the case we’ve used hyperbole and fiery rhetoric so much that we no longer take ourselves seriously.

Maybe we need to re-read the story about the boy who cried wolf. For example, when we say someone or their position is “evil,” do we believe it? Do we believe it to the extent that we feel our duty to act against it? Biblically speaking, it’s not enough to call something evil and then merely abstain from participating in it; we must also oppose it. We are to resist the Devil (James 4:7; 1 Pet. 5:8-9) and resist sin knowing that we’ve not yet struggled to the point of shedding blood (Heb. 12:4). There’s more for us to do than fire off tweets, bang out blog posts, and join in Evangelical gossip about the people “we can’t believe said that.” We ought not be sophists and mere rhetoricians. If we use words—especially serious words like “evil”—we should mean it and then act accordingly. In a sense, that’s the entirety of my position and at times it seems a quiet but major factor creating controversy with some who use the most flaming rhetoric.

Taking Evil Seriously

But what if we were to take evil seriously?

I tremble each time I apply “evil” to Clinton and Trump. And I do apply it to them both. Something in me draws back, alarmed. But I do so, I believe, with reason. While I do not believe they are the personification of evil (that’s the hyperbole of point 2 above), I do think their positions at numerous points are wicked when viewed biblically.

Hilary Clinton’s position on abortion, along with the official position of the Democratic Party, is an unquestionably evil policy. Her 80s-era comments calling young African American boys and men “super predators” was an ugly example of race-baiting in support of an utterly destructive criminalization of my people and my community. Her back-pedaling in recent months is hardly sufficient. Clinton’s penchant for bending the truth beyond recognition is more than standard fare in political races; it’s repeated breaking of God’s command not to lie or bear false witness.

Donald Trump is not a career politician. So we don’t have twenty years of history in political office to scrutinize. But, boy, he sure seems to be trying to make up time with several times daily displays of his sin. He’s no pro-life champion and has even been a contributor to the Clintons. He’s argued for Japan and Saudi Arabia to have nuclear weapons. That’s not only bizarre, it’s also potentially genocidal. Mr. Trump talks freely about registering Muslims, encroaching on a basic civil and religious liberty. His explicitly racist comments about Mexicans and others is no small sin. His comments about women are not only impolite but are themselves an evil affront to the image of God in our sisters. I don’t want my country to become again a place where open hatred is championed at the highest levels as I fear they are with Mr. Trump. They’re both guilty of pride (who of us isn’t?), but Mr. Trump’s campaign seems inordinately centered on him, his greatness and little else in the way of responsible public service ideas.

We could go on with regard to them both, couldn’t we? For every category of sin, it seems we could list flagrant instances for each candidate. And if we did, then we’d likely conclude along with many, many reasonable persons that this is an impossible choice. I have great sympathy for that view since for the last three presidential elections I’ve not been able to bring myself to vote for that very reason. I get that view.

But what if we use the word “evil” seriously and not as hyperbole? I know many of us are only being hyperbolical. If that’s you, I hope you’ll stop. I hope you’ll tone down the rhetoric lest we continue to be guilty of creating the very environment where flame-throwing politics thrive. But if you do think it’s actual evil, then keep using the word. Use it with meaning and use it with the godly force evil deserves.

But then we have to ask, “What is our biblical responsibility if we think their positions are truly evil?”

The thoughts below are for those who honestly think we are facing evil choices on both hands. If that’s not you, this won’t make sense or be compelling. But if it is you, I do hope it provokes further thought about pursuing active resistance in this election.

We cannot simply palliate our conscience.

I’ve said this before, but a quiet conscience is not always a biblical conscience. Choosing a path that leaves us content by not voting doesn’t strike me as a biblical path if we believe we’re facing evil. Bystanders to evil are never given a pass for their inaction; they’re judged for it. And telling ourselves “we had nothing to do with the evil because we didn’t vote” is like slapping ourselves on the back because we managed to walk away instead of joining the crowd in bullying the weak kid. If your conscience has been awakened to the evil before you, you’re meant to actively oppose the evil the best way you can. We can arrive at different views of “the best way you can,” but that we must be active in resistance seems self-evident to me. There are always at least two ways to “quiet our conscience.” We may lull it back to sleep or we may take biblical action to inform and satisfy it. Only one will receive the Lord’s “Well done.”

We cannot opt for the merely symbolic.

Symbols are great, necessary and sometimes powerful. But symbol is an inadequate response to substantive evil. So, while I think third party options are possibilities, I tend to think they’re viable as a response to evil only if you have a chance of winning. They’re great for fighting battles on or over principle; they’re lousy for stopping megalomaniacs and petite dictators who could care less about principle. Mr. Trump is not a principled conservative, so standing on principle is ineffective. Mrs. Clinton’s principles include slaughtering the unborn among other things, so her hand must be stopped with something more than the symbolic. We need a way of winning that’s more subversive of both agendas than either candidate could imagine. If a third party candidate with potential for defeating both Trump and Clinton emerges, they will have my most enthusiastic and happy support. But, for me, it’s got to be more than symbol because I’m convinced the evil is real.

We cannot continue in blind party loyalty.

If your party—whatever party you choose—only gives you an evil option to support, then you cannot remain loyal to that party. Right now there are a lot of people putting party over principle, holding their noses, as the saying goes, and standing with someone most readers of this post will find unconscionable at least. Clinging to the party for party’s sake or even because you “don’t like the other guy” doesn’t seem to me to be an adequate redress of the evil that concerns us. It’s a tribal wink at such evil. It’s merely a preference for the sin we find least objectionable or most acceptable, depending on where you stand. So, it seems to me, it’s past time Christians with minds bound by the word of God forsake party politics for party politics sake. And if this election proves anything, it proves there remains among Christian people a lot of uncritical allegiance to the parties of men and even some idolizing of them.

If we cannot make progress on cherished issues, we should not regress on other fronts.

We do not have a dedicated pro-life option in this election. Appeals to the nomination of Supreme Court justices, while hopeful, don’t strike me as realistic. If someone says we shouldn’t reject Mr. Trump because of the evil we imagine he might do were he elected, they shouldn’t then say support Mr. Trump because of the good they imagine he might do with Supreme Court nominees. We can’t or shouldn’t try to have it both ways. I think I see plenty of evidence for not trusting a thing Mr. Trump promises. But more than that, I think I see plentiful evidence that Mr. Trump represents a Dr. Who-styled transport back to a time when overt racist speech, physical brutality, mistreatment of women, and inter-ethnic mistrust were at an all-time high. And I’m genuinely concerned with the ways I see people already suggesting or stating, “racism isn’t as bad as abortion.” Where I sit, they’re both heinous evils and racism insidiously warps a lot more things than individual prejudice. Perhaps it’s a lack of faith, but I don’t think we’re going to gain ground on abortion with either candidate. So I’m asking myself how to hold the line on racism, sexism and other isms that seem so plentiful in this election. I don’t want to regress toward the 1950s even a little bit. And while many people would want to argue that Mrs. Clinton is as racist as Donald Trump, only one of the candidates is actually making policy suggestions that would enshrine that racism.

If we can, we have to put forward our best defense.

If we think the evil is real and if we feel a unable to thwart both sides, then I think we have to field our best defense. I think that means putting the party with the best defense on the losing end of the general election. In other words, if we vote for the evil marked “GOP,” then we leave our weakest defensive players (Dems) on the field for a goal line stance. Democrats are lousy at defense and more than that wouldn’t be inclined to hold the lines I’d want to hold anyway. Republicans, like it or lump it, know how to shut a government down, hold up a SCOTUS nominee, and just plain dig in against a president. They don’t always win, but they’re the best defense out there. And they’re the only ones even pretending to care about what an Evangelical thinks. They would need Evangelicals more if they lose than if they win. And Evangelicals would gain more influence if the party’s dependence upon their vote couldn’t be taken for granted.

But put the GOP in the White House with a “President Trump” and not only are they no longer on defense but they’re being quarterbacked by a guy running plays from some playbook only he knows. You’d win the White House but probably lose down ticket elections and almost any credibility with a diversifying electorate (this year about 30% of voters will be from ethnic groups Mr. Trump routinely insults and angers). Electing Mr. Trump would be bad in the short and long term for the sides of me that values social conservatism and cultural pluralism.

CONCLUSION

Tomorrow, Lord willing, I want to offer another post. I’ve received quite a few comments alleging that “race” is an idol for me in this election and that I’m endorsing a baby killer and so on. Once again, I don’t expect everybody or even anybody to agree with me. But I want to address that misrepresentation and lay bare my own logic on such things. Until then, the Lord bless you and keep you.

]]>https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/can-we-talk-or-why-i-think-a-trump-presidency-is-intolerable-even-though-you-might-not-agree/feed/0Evangelical Leaders: Tell Us to Vote for Clintonhttps://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/evangelical-leaders-tell-us-to-vote-for-clinton/
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/evangelical-leaders-tell-us-to-vote-for-clinton/#respondThu, 02 Jun 2016 04:00:00 +0000http://tgcstaging.wpengine.com/thabiti-anyabwile/evangelical-leaders-tell-us-to-vote-for-clinton/Editor’s Note: This is a guest post from a friend, fellow church member, and leader at Anacostia River Church, Nick Rodriguez. By day, Nick works in education policy and reform. But he’s a full-time husband and father who loves the Lord Jesus Christ. The views expressed here are Nick’s. They do not represent the views of Anacostia River Church or The Gospel Coalition. If interested in more of my personal views on this topic, see here and here. ——————— Last week, Donald Trump officially secured the number of delegates needed to win the Republican nomination for president. And while it’s...]]>

Editor’s Note: This is a guest post from a friend, fellow church member, and leader at Anacostia River Church, Nick Rodriguez. By day, Nick works in education policy and reform. But he’s a full-time husband and father who loves the Lord Jesus Christ. The views expressed here are Nick’s. They do not represent the views of Anacostia River Church or The Gospel Coalition. If interested in more of my personal views on this topic, see here and here.

———————

Last week, Donald Trump officially secured the number of delegates needed to win the Republican nomination for president. And while it’s not quite over on the Democratic side of the race, Hillary Clinton is overwhelmingly likely to be that party’s nominee.

Trump’s nomination has presented evangelical Christians with a difficult choice: support Trump, support Hillary Clinton, vote for a third alternative who is unlikely to win, or don’t vote at all. To their credit, many evangelical leaders have ruled out that first option – they recognize just what an unacceptable candidate Trump is and what harm he would do to our country as president.

But these same leaders are divided on what the alternative should be. Some believe that while Trump would be bad, Hillary would be just as bad (or close enough that it doesn’t really matter). So they counsel no vote, or a vote for a third party. Others are undecided. But a very small minority, including my host on this blog, have decided (at least for now) to vote for Hillary.

I’m writing this post in Thabiti’s space both to add my voice to his and to make a claim that goes a little further: I think that evangelical leaders – in particular, conservative evangelical leaders – need to use all the influence God has given them to encourage thinking Christians to vote for Hillary Clinton. No dithering; no qualifications. The stakes are simply too high.

Let me back up for a moment and share a little bit about where I’m coming from. I’m a member of Thabiti’s church and a person of color. I’m also a lifelong Democrat. I became a believer just over 10 years ago, and while my views on life and marriage changed, most of the rest of my political beliefs – which align with those of the Democratic party – did not. So my voting behavior stayed the same, even after my conversion.

That was about to change with this election. Over the course of years and conversations with Christian friends who are active in politics, I became convicted that, for all my alignment with Democrats on other issues, a single issue – a Democrat’s endorsement of the right to kill unborn children – outweighed all the others. So I was getting ready to (reluctantly) pull the lever for Ted Cruz, or Marco Rubio, or Scott Walker, or whoever won the Republican nomination, this November. Then Donald Trump interrupted my plans.

You might be thinking that it’s easy for me to say this – after all, I’ve voted for Democrats all my life. Maybe Trump is just an excuse for me to keep doing the same? This is precisely the reason why conservative evangelical leaders need to be the ones making this case. And I’m here to try to convince you. So here are 6 reasons why you should encourage all of us to vote for Hillary this Fall.

Every election is a choice between different evils.

This point has been made before, but I just want to make it again, in case any of us are laboring under the illusion that past endorsements of “traditional” candidates were morally uncomplicated choices. Exhibit A is the 2012 election: four years ago, most of you had no problem telling Christians to vote for an avowed leader of a false religion – a person who had dedicated a substantial portion of his life shepherding souls down a path that leads to hell. When you endorsed him, I know you weren’t endorsing that; you just had a common cause that was more important. The same is true with endorsing Hillary. You’re not endorsing her views on abortion (and you can make that clear); rather, you have a common cause with her that’s more important. Which brings me to…

Trump may be an existential threat to the Republic.

Plenty of observers have noted Trump’s authoritarian rhetoric, his megalomania and narcissism, and the literal cult of personality he has built. And they have painted a picture of just how real the threat of Trump could be. Andrew Sullivan captures the image well in a recent essay in New York Magazine:

“Trump is not just a wacky politician of the far right, or a riveting television spectacle, or a Twitter phenom and bizarre working-class hero. He is not just another candidate to be parsed and analyzed by TV pundits in the same breath as all the others. In terms of our liberal democracy and constitutional order, Trump is an extinction-level event. It’s long past time we started treating him as such.”

Note that I didn’t say that Trump definitely is an existential threat. I don’t know that; nobody does. Hitler only rose to power because enough people believed that he wasn’t such a threat. There is no way of predicting in advance just how bad a President Trump would be. But if you’re an evangelical leader, this sets up a version of Pascal’s wager for you. If Trump turns out to be embarrassing but not all that bad, then your pride will suffer a bit, and you’ll have to say you were wrong to support Hillary. You’ll try to be wiser in the next election.

But if Trump turns out to be the “extinction-level event” that Sullivan predicts, and you fail to do everything in your power to stop him, then you will join a long line of evangelical leaders who have been on the wrong side of history – and judged harshly for it – at critical moments ranging from slavery to Jim Crow to abortion (in the early days of that debate). Your witness for Christ – our witness – will be diluted because we didn’t do everything we could to prevent this catastrophe. And there won’t be a next election to get it right.

Trump is a threat to the unity of the church.

All of this is to say nothing of Trump’s racism and misogyny. As a person of color, I have to tell you that Trump gives me reason to fear for life and safety – for myself, for my mixed-race family, and for our immigrant parents – in a way that no political candidate ever has before. I hope that our conservative evangelical leaders, particularly those who are white, understand this: your stand against Trump, in solidarity with the people he hopes to marginalize, is critical to preventing that marginalization. If the movement against Trump is seen to be mostly a movement of people of color, then it will feed into the very narrative of white grievance that he thrives on.

I cannot speak for all believers of color, but I believe that many of us are remembering the evangelical church’s history on matters of race, looking to our leaders today, and hoping that this disappointing history does not repeat itself. Your actions to stop Trump should be so clear, so unequivocal, that you guarantee yourself a spot on Trump’s “enemies” list if he were to be elected president. Otherwise, the temptation to accommodate or to reconcile with a President Trump will be too strong for some of you in the aftermath of his election, and the church’s unity will suffer as a result.

You may think she’s terrible, but Hillary Clinton is a conventional Democrat.

All right, you might be thinking: Trump is bad, but isn’t Hillary just as bad? Isn’t her support for abortion alone equal to all of the terrible things I’ve just described?

Perhaps – and you might spend all of a Hillary Clinton presidency opposing everything she’s doing at the top of your lungs. But I’m pretty sure you’ll still be able to oppose her in the context of the democratic republic we live in, and that you’ll be able to work to unseat her in the next election if that’s what you want. I cannot say the same of Trump. Fighting to protect life is important – but, with a candidate like Trump in the mix, it’s more important to protect your ability to fight for life over the long term. Due to his marriage of convenience with the Republican party, you might get a Supreme Court justice or two out of a Trump presidency. But it’s a Faustian bargain – eventually, Trump will do whatever is best for him, including appointing judges who help him overturn rather than protect the current constitutional order.

Hillary Clinton may do bad things as president – but as Thabiti said, they will be predictable bad things, and things that you’ll be able to oppose vigorously and with a clear conscience after the threat of Trump is past.

Yes, you should vote strategically.

The next objection is obvious: Can’t I keep my powder dry by not voting or by voting for a third party candidate? Do I really have to vote for Hillary? Can’t I just not vote for Trump?

I recently had a conversation with a dear brother of mine who had read the Andrew Sullivan piece and was contemplating its warning of an “extinction-level event.” I asked him if that meant he would vote for Hillary. “I’d rather not,” he said. “Maybe if the polls tighten, and it looks like Trump might win, I’ll vote for Hillary.”

The problem is that it’s exactly this kind of thinking, applied en masse, that could result in a Trump presidency. The primaries were conducted sequentially; over time, we came to accept that Trump was commanding plurality (and eventually majority) support from Republican voters as the results came in. But we didn’t believe it before the first votes were cast, and lots of pundits have egg on their face from having predicted that Trump would fizzle out.

The general election opens us up to an even worse version of this error. It’s a one-shot deal, without opportunities to learn lessons from prior elections. If the polls get it wrong and we’re complacent, we don’t get to correct the mistake. And in any case, why gamble with something so important? Suppose that Trump only has a 20% chance of winning. If we knew there was a 20% chance that our loved ones would die in November, would we spend the next six months comforting ourselves with the 80% chance that they won’t? No: we’d do whatever we could to change the odds. So, too, with voting for Hillary: the best way to use your vote against Trump is to vote for the next most likely person to win.

It has to come from you.

I said at the beginning that I’m not a credible messenger for this argument. I’ve voted for Democrats all my life. It seems obvious that someone like me would take advantage of an opportunity to declare my support for the candidate I’m more culturally comfortable with.

This is why it has to come from you – particularly those of you who have vocally supported Republicans in the past and are likely to continue to do so in the future. Conservative evangelical voters have to hear that it’s OK to vote for Hillary – just this once – from a source that they trust. This is your Nixon to China moment: a chance to take an unlikely stand that will get people’s attention and have an impact on the outcome.

More generally, I’d encourage you to look inside your own heart and ask why it is that you’re reluctant to support Hillary. I understand that there are good reasons for that reluctance. But are some of the wrong reasons sprinkled in there as well? Have you, like me, voted for the same party for so long that it seems reflexively wrong to vote for someone from the other party? Do you fear how you might be judged by politically conservative colleagues and friends? Have you spent enough time in their company that you’ve been convinced that she’s not just wrong on an issue you care about, but a cartoon villain of a politician? For the last generation, political tribalism has placed most evangelical Christians on the red team. Is that fact clouding your view of what you need to do?

These barriers mirror the ones I had to overcome in deciding to change my vote this year (until Trump came along, that is). And they are the same barriers that many evangelical voters – your congregants – are struggling with right now as they consider whether to vote for Hillary. By taking a public stand, you can help them to overcome those barriers.

My hope is that I’ll be able to vote for a candidate who unambiguously protects life in 2020. But until then, I hope that Christians throughout this country will work together to protect us from the threat Trump represents. Our leaders can play a big role in giving us permission and guidance within the law to do this in a way that preserves our witness and honors Christ. And though we strive for a particular result, I pray that we would ultimately trust God with the outcome, and that we would glorify Him with our actions both before and after the coming election.

]]>https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/evangelical-leaders-tell-us-to-vote-for-clinton/feed/0A Quick Word on the Conscience and Christian Witnesshttps://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/a-quick-word-on-the-conscience-and-christian-witness/
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/a-quick-word-on-the-conscience-and-christian-witness/#respondWed, 11 May 2016 04:00:00 +0000http://tgcstaging.wpengine.com/thabiti-anyabwile/a-quick-word-on-the-conscience-and-christian-witness/A number of people have asked me if my conscience troubles me with the thought of opposing a Trump presidency by checking Clinton in November if it comes to that. In yesterday’s post I offered a brief and simple reply of “Yes.” But I also went on to say that a spotlessly clear conscience may not be open to Christians of conviction if we seriously think we face two “evil” outcomes. Part of what “choosing the lesser of two evils” necessary involves is a conflict of conscience. As I’ve been asked this question it’s seemed to me that many people think...]]>

A number of people have asked me if my conscience troubles me with the thought of opposing a Trump presidency by checking Clinton in November if it comes to that. In yesterday’s post I offered a brief and simple reply of “Yes.” But I also went on to say that a spotlessly clear conscience may not be open to Christians of conviction if we seriously think we face two “evil” outcomes. Part of what “choosing the lesser of two evils” necessary involves is a conflict of conscience.

As I’ve been asked this question it’s seemed to me that many people think their conscience is the final arbiter of what’s right and wrong. They’ve suggested an implicit trust in their conscience, that internal witness to right and wrong that God has placed in every human heart. But we ought to be careful of implicitly trusting our conscience because the conscience can be weak, defiled, uninformed, overly sensitive, dull or even cut. There’s a lot of work that needs to be done in our spiritual lives for our consciences to function properly.

To be clear, no one is arguing that anyone should “vote against their conscience.” What I’m suggesting here is that we have to have a biblical view of the conscience, inform it by the Bible, before we can act in ways that properly satisfy it.

In that spirit, here are ten summary statements about the conscience from the Bible:

1. We should seek to live in good conscience before God all of our lives (Acts 23:1; 2 Cor. 1:12; 2 Tim. 1:3);
2. We should seek to live with a clear conscience before men (Acts 24:16; 2 Cor. 4:2; 1 Pet. 3:16);
3. Our conscience bears witness for/against us (Rom. 2:15; 9:1);
4. We should submit to government as a matter of conscience (Rom. 13:5);
5. But the conscience can be weak, defiled, and even seared (1 Cor. 8:7, 10, 12; 1 Tim. 4:12; Titus 1:5);
6. We have a responsibility to consider the consciences of others in matters of worship (1 Cor. 10:27-29);
7. God’s word is meant to produce in us godly love that comes, in part, from a good conscience (1 Tim. 1:5);
8. One part of our spiritual warfare and faithfulness is defined by keeping a good conscience (1 Tim. 1:19);
9. The conscience is not perfected by religious acts of worship like sacrifices (Heb. 9:9) but only by the blood of Christ (Heb. 9:14; 10:22; 1 Pet. 3:21);
10. Christians should pray for one another, that our acts lead to a clean conscience (Heb. 13:18).

What is evident in all of this is that the conscience should be a guide, an alarm system of sorts, but shouldn’t be trusted as the final arbiter. The word of God has that place because the conscience needs to be instructed, informed and sometimes reformed. So, in the context of clear and present evil, it’s not enough to simply say, “My conscience won’t let me.” We actually have to ask our conscience some questions about the whole counsel of God in our situation. We may still end up saying, “My conscience won’t let me based upon the word of God,” but that’s a better position than an implicit trust in one’s conscience–which can be wrong and often is for many.

Mahatma Gandhi once said, “There is a higher court than courts of justice and that is the court of conscience. It supersedes all other courts.” Ghandhi was wrong. There is the court of heaven whose laws are written in the scripture. There’s no higher court than God’s; it supersedes the conscience. If we trust our conscience without inspecting it by the light of God’s word, then we’re closer to Gandhi in our view of the conscience than we are the Lord Jesus.

So those asking questions of conscience have a correct concern. We all just need to keep pressing into the scripture for the answers rather than the conscience alone.

]]>https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/a-quick-word-on-the-conscience-and-christian-witness/feed/0A Vote to Check Unpredictable Evil with the Predictablehttps://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/a-vote-to-check-unpredictable-evil-with-the-predictable/
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/a-vote-to-check-unpredictable-evil-with-the-predictable/#respondTue, 10 May 2016 04:00:00 +0000http://tgcstaging.wpengine.com/thabiti-anyabwile/a-vote-to-check-unpredictable-evil-with-the-predictable/Let me say from the onset that I’m not looking for a debate with anyone. I’m not looking to sway anyone’s vote or to suggest that someone viewing things differently from me is in sin. I’m not wanting to pit my “moral outrage” against your “moral outrage” in a battle for “moral supremacy.” I’m certainly not interested in casting aspersions or receiving any. If you’re looking for that, then you’ve come to the wrong post. I’ll delete anything I think comes close to violating an Ephesians 4:29 approach to communication. I’m interested in thinking out loud about a dilemma most...]]>

Let me say from the onset that I’m not looking for a debate with anyone. I’m not looking to sway anyone’s vote or to suggest that someone viewing things differently from me is in sin. I’m not wanting to pit my “moral outrage” against your “moral outrage” in a battle for “moral supremacy.” I’m certainly not interested in casting aspersions or receiving any. If you’re looking for that, then you’ve come to the wrong post. I’ll delete anything I think comes close to violating an Ephesians 4:29 approach to communication.

I’m interested in thinking out loud about a dilemma most Christians feel they’re in with this election: who to vote for or whether to vote at all. I’m going to write passionately. How can I not? But you take responsibility for thinking actively about this and making your own decision. I’m trying to share how I land where I do today (might be different tomorrow).

For personal context, you have to consider my argument over the past several years. I’ve argued on principled grounds that I could not vote for anyone in the last couple of presidential elections because I found their moral positions on vital issues unconscionable. In addition to my own principle, I found historical support in the likes of W.E.B. DuBois and others. The key question then, as now, is: “Why are you voting the way you are?”

For some people it’s a simple matter of disgust or repulsion with one candidate or the other. You sometimes hear that phrased as “the lesser of two evils.” This election more than any other that I can remember has many Christians seeing with perhaps equal clarity the evil of both options. Many, as I would have for the past decade or more, are opting to sit this one out.

So what’s changed for me? Or, to ask again the key question, “Why am I voting the way I am?” I’ll answer this question by considering three either/or statements attending this election.

Stalin or Hitler?

A good number of people liken the choice between Clinton and Trump to a choice between Stalin or Hitler. Some argue there is no lesser evil–only evil. For some, it’s the first time an election season has brought them to that conclusion. Again, for context, I’ve been there for some time. I’m no party loyalist. I think the Dem’s and the Rep’s both have been selling their constituencies a mess of porridge for a long time. But now, the slick marketing and colorful wrappers have fallen off. We’re staring directly at the contents of a rather ugly soup–whichever you choose.

But here’s what we know about both Stalin and Hitler. They both stampeded through their countries and neighboring countries destroying lives. If we’re not just being hyperbolic with the comparison, but we truly believe ours is a choice tantamount in our context to Stalin or Hitler, then the question is, How do you defeat them both? Both. Neither should rule. Either is bad for everyone.

Honestly, I don’t know how you defeat them both. If there were a viable third party candidate, I’d quickly vote for them. I’m stressing “viable” not as a means of simply lapsing into some party loyalty. Remember: I have none. I’m stressing “viable” because I think the threat of either candidate is real. I’m not using the Stalin or Hitler comparison to simply be provocative. I’m taking it seriously (if rhetorically) and taking it seriously means I can’t sit on the fence this time. For me, compelled by the brutal realities, I now have to act, play my part as an individual citizen. I have to vote. And, regrettably, unless there’s a third party tsunami, which I’d happily ride, I have to vote for either Clinton or Trump because one of them will win. While writing in and third party has the appeal of offering some protest, some symbolic demonstration, it doesn’t mean jack when it comes to who will be Commander-in-Chief for the next four years. It has little value for at least limiting the evil that will result.

I feel the need to cast a vote–a vote against someone. I respect others who differ.

A Troubled or Quiet Conscience?

Some have written to ask, “Doesn’t this cause you problems of conscience?” Or, they put it affirmatively, “You’re going against your conscience.”

I appreciate the concern. The honest reply is, “Yes. I have matters of conscience to attend. And I am.”

But let me hasten to add a couple of things. I don’t think the goal right now is merely a quiet conscience. I don’t see how such a goal can be met without abdicating a significant moral responsibility to oppose evil. It’s not enough to say, “I had no part in the evil.” We must actually resist the evil as best we can. We’re in that Bonhoeffer-like moment where we can choose peaceful exile in some Evangelical enclave or enter the fray bearing our cross. If we choose exile, like Bonhoeffer, we’ll have no right to participate in our Germany after Hitler. If we choose to bear our cross, we’ll have the right now and later to testify to what’s right in the sight of God.

Which brings me to a second point. If a person can sit by peaceably while evil progresses, then they have a conscience problem of a different sort. It’s not the problem of seeming to actively support some evil by a vote, it’s the problem of a dull conscience that ignores evil. To seek a quiet conscience by not voting seems to me an abdication of moral responsibility. Better is voting third party or writing in. But they’re better in a marginal sense with little potential for abating the present evils. I’m choosing the troubled conscience that engages over the quiet conscience that abdicates.

We must enter the fight with the tools we have, with our consciences either afflicted or comforted by the word of God. Personally, I feel more trouble of conscience in acquiescing to a political quietism given the choices than I do in voting against someone.

Status Quo or Revolution?

To summarize: I think the evil is real. Consequently, my conscience is aroused and I feel obligated to act in a way that attenuates the evil–in this case, vote. That leaves one question: Who to vote for?

At this point, assuming Trump and Clinton are my only options, I’d vote for Clinton. Okay… take a deep breath. Count to ten. Pray.

Here’s why: I prefer the predictable over the unpredictable. Whatever we might call Clinton, however we might evaluate her as a leader or her platform as a vision for America, we could say more or less the exact same things about Trump–with one glaring exception. We have no way of predicting Trump’s behavior from one hour to the next. None. Except to predict that the behavior will be vile and repulsive for any person who cares about civility, truth, and the dignity of the office.

Neither candidate represents any of my values. That’s just not on offer to any Christian of serious biblical intent. But Clinton represents the status quo, a steady state of affairs in that regard. Trump is the revolutionary, the rebel it seems without a clear cause. His prescriptions are not only draconian but also erratic. When I add the loathsome race-baiting, the misogynistic views of women, the isolationist foreign policy notions, the equivocating on abortion, the advocating of war crimes and escalation of conflict even with allies, I’m left looking at a revolutionary that would cast us in sentiment and law back to the 1940s at least. Or, to put it in the terms often used (which I don’t personally prefer), I regard a President Trump the worse of the two evils before us–and worse in a way that I cannot predict and on issues that there’s been so much blood shed over already (i.e., the rights of minorities, women, and the religious). I’d vote for the incrementalist over the revolutionary. For revolutions almost never lead to progress.

To be clear: Voting against Trump by checking Clinton does nothing to advance any of the issues I care about. So this is not a vote for Clinton or her platform. This is not an endorsement as some so ardently want to suggest. It’s one man’s vote for the status quo rather than the self-styled “outsider” whose first step in potentially destroying the country is destroying his party.

What About a Third Party?

Finally, let me think out loud about our present predicament with having no third-party candidate. Why is that?

Well, it’s at least due to our allegiance to the two-party system. Americans are sold real hard on the notion that there are only two parties in this democracy; everyone else shouldn’t be taken seriously.

But for Christians, I think there’s another reason. We’ve not taken seriously enough the dignity and necessity of public service as a vocation. And we’ve not discipled people for public service with nearly the kind of prayer and effectiveness the country needs. Why don’t we have a slew of serious Christians available for the highest office in the land? Why is principle in so short supply? Perhaps it’s because the Christian Church–especially the Evangelical Church–has sought to cozy up with Caesar in the hopes of currying his favor rather than oust Caesar in hopes of replacing him in selfless and sacrificial service.

I don’t mean that pastors should leave their pulpits for this demotion. But I suspect more individual Christians need to be discipled to follow Christ into this sphere instead of left to be discipled by the two-party system. It strikes me that an awful lot of the professing Christians in politics wear their faith as a selling point for their constituencies while they really tout Dem or Rep party lines. Few are the servants who tout Christ and have the scriptures shape their platforms. Consequently, we have Christians on both sides of the aisle blindly and uncritically equating their party’s platforms and ethics with Jesus himself. Meanwhile, many others tremble before the world, yelling, “We don’t want a pastor-in-chief but a commander-in-chief” (you see how that worked for Israel in 1 Sam. 8). All the while we risk betraying our Lord, ourselves, and our country.

Conclusion

To be clear about one more thing: I’m in no way putting hope in any candidate, in our election process, or any other election. My hope is firmly in Jesus Christ my Lord. He is my Master and I am His servant. I don’t judge His other servants in this matter and I don’t even judge myself. To Him will I stand or fall–and I’m trusting Him to make me stand. I know Who I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep me in this present evil age and keep me until that Day.

Again, none of this is written to aggravate anyone’s flesh or to create dissension between brethren. If that’s you, then please go elsewhere. And don’t act wounded if your comment gets deleted or you get blocked. Ain’t nobody got time for trolls. Otherwise, feel free to think out loud with me and others that we might help one another arrive at faithful conclusions for our time, this politically desperate time.

—————————-

Note: The views expressed here are my own. They do not express or intend to represent the views of Anacostia River Church or any of its members.

]]>https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/a-vote-to-check-unpredictable-evil-with-the-predictable/feed/0Love from Alaskahttps://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/love-alaska/
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/love-alaska/#respondMon, 09 May 2016 04:00:00 +0000http://tgcstaging.wpengine.com/thabiti-anyabwile/love-alaska/My honest truth? When it comes to so-called “racial reconciliation” or just plain living out the faith in its intra-ethnic dimensions, these days I’m quite exhausted and usually thinking about ways to check out. That’s been the case for the last two years. It’s not hard to imagine why. And just when I’m thinking of folding up the tent and moving on to some other more isolated, less diverse spot to camp, the Lord sends encouragement. Not encouragement to go, but encouragement to endure. A gentle reminder that He is there, doing His work all along, achieving reconciliation in far...]]>

My honest truth? When it comes to so-called “racial reconciliation” or just plain living out the faith in its intra-ethnic dimensions, these days I’m quite exhausted and usually thinking about ways to check out. That’s been the case for the last two years. It’s not hard to imagine why.

And just when I’m thinking of folding up the tent and moving on to some other more isolated, less diverse spot to camp, the Lord sends encouragement. Not encouragement to go, but encouragement to endure. A gentle reminder that He is there, doing His work all along, achieving reconciliation in far flung places. And that’s the thing: I (we?) tend to think it’s not happening if it’s not happening with me (us?) right where we are. I’m seldom actively thinking it’s happening somewhere else, where I’m not, with people I can’t see. Then the encouragement comes.

Today I received the following letter from Peter in, of all places, Alaska. I don’t receive letters like this often–just often enough to keep praying and pushing. They don’t arrive weekly or even monthly. But they do come in time, on time. And I’m reminded that God works things out where we’re not looking, behind our backs, for His glory.

So, with his permission in the P.S., I’m posting this (a) because Peter specifically mentions a number of people we should appreciate, (b) because perhaps you need encouragement too, and (c) perhaps his example might help others own their own stories, diversify their friendships, and confess to the glory of God. While I’m hopeful, this is what I pray. Tomorrow I might be less hopeful and I’ll have this here to read again.

———————-

Thabiti,

Allow me to introduce myself and hopefully give you a little bit of context for the rest of this note:

My name is Pete Doner. I’ll be thirty years old this summer, and my wife and I will celebrate six years of marriage. We are expecting our third child any day now, which is part of why I’m at home writing instead of at work. I’m a self-employed carpenter, with the most of my time spent framing houses. My family lives in Wasilla, Alaska. We are members of Wasilla Bible Church–a congregation that was briefly made famous by Sarah Palin’s occasional attendance.

If every fact I’ve given you and my manner itself hasn’t already made this obvious: my wife and I are white. We also both belong very much to Jesus, and we love his Church.

I first heard your talk “The Decline of African American Theology” via a TGC podcast in the spring of 2012. I was impressed with your courage, and I was fascinated by the history of African-American theology–something I knew nothing about. But more than anything I felt a flood of relief as I heard you speak. Deep down inside me was the inarticulated fear that the reformation truths that grip me and have shaped my life were only part of my white cultural heritage. Its embarrassing to confess that I used to feel that way- I know its an ignorant view. But hearing you, with your obviously black name, express love for biblical theology in your obviously black voice, encouraged me deeply. In pointing to a rich heritage of black theologians who submitted joyfully to the authority of scripture you silenced a lot of my fears.

That was the first in a chain of events that led me to think about black/white/Jesus issues more than before. Next, John Piper posted something online about Lecrae, who I had barely heard of. I might be the only person on the planet who became a hip-hop listener because of John Piper. But over the last few years Lecrae, Propaganda, Shai Linne, Jackie Hill Perry and others have become some of my very favorite artists, and voices that God has used to convict and encourage me.

I hope I can describe some of the irony here. I don’t know if its possible to look racist, but I might. I’m tall and skinny, with short blond hair and blue eyes, and my clothes reflect my occupation (I wear a beard, flannel, plaid and boots in a non-hiptser way). Whenever I encounter someone who is brown or black I feel obligated to smile extra and hope they take a second look at my tattoos and see that they are inspired by Jesus and my wife, not Adolf Hitler. I am an avid hunter and skier. The Johnny Cash in my iTunes library isn’t going to surprise anyone, but the growing library of hip-hop made by Christians would probably surprise an observer trying to figure me out.

Having all these black voices in my thought life has been disruptive to my accustomed habits of speech and thought. After saying something racially charged around my white friends (and I only have white friends because I live in Wasilla, Alaska) I have found myself wondering how that would make Thabiti or Propaganda feel if either of you had been in the room. A couple of times I’ve heard white guys say offensive stuff about black people, and I felt compelled to speak up (really clumsily as it turns out) on behalf of these black believers I’ve come to love and respect.

Along with this shift in my thinking the Holy Spirit has convicted me that I’m guilty of racial partiality, and while its a dirty and complicated word, I’ll just call it racism. It’s not a racism that makes me Donald-Trump-offensive, but for a long time it allowed me to be more angry about black/white conflict than I was grieved. I was angrier about Michael Brown apparently roughing up a convenience store clerk more than I was grieved for his family and community. I was angrier about riots in Baltimore more that I was grieved about the poverty and pitiable condition of the rioters. I don’t think it is wrong to be angry about violent or rude behavior from people of any color, but I’ve felt convicted that my anger should be dwarfed by real Christian grief and desire for reconciliation. Along with that, I’m looking for ways that I can take part in reconciliation with my words and my work.

Thabiti, God is using you and other black Christians to prod me out of sin and pull me into better obedience. Thank you for that! I’ve been writing this rambling note in the back of my mind for a few months now, since I saw some crazy white dude accuse you on social media of being some sort of secret abortion supporter. I think I felt the Holy Spirit nudge me that maybe I should try and reach out, that maybe a word of thanks, confession and support from a culturally distant brother in Christ like myself might be of value.

God bless!

Pete Doner

PS: I’m sending this to you privately, but its also an open letter. Here’s what I mean: If I’m rambling, or this is the sixth letter like this this month that you have received, or if I’ve accidentally been offensive I am content with privacy. But I don’t want you to feel for a second like my appreciation for you or my repentance from sin is something I’m embarrassed to say publicly. This letter is yours to share anyway you want. If you think I should, I’ll post it on my blog where all eleven of my readers can see it. (Mostly, my blog is read by my extended family, I’m not exactly Tim Challies.)

]]>https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/love-alaska/feed/0I’m Still a Complementarian… And There’s Still That “But”https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/im-still-a-complementarian-and-theres-still-that-but/
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/im-still-a-complementarian-and-theres-still-that-but/#respondSat, 07 May 2016 04:00:00 +0000http://tgcstaging.wpengine.com/thabiti-anyabwile/im-still-a-complementarian-and-theres-still-that-but/Many of us writers struggle to write beautifully about beautiful things. Our words fall lifeless like stones. Our imaginations mist and evaporate. We look drop-jawed at stunning wonders, feeling the ineffable sense of the thing. But when we speak or write, by comparison, we’re crude and clumsy. That’s how I feel about most evangelical grappling with complementarity. To be clear, I can’t do much better. I’m as clumsy and skill-less as the next guy. And it is usually guys with this problem. We talk about “muscular”-this and “testosterone”-that. We write as if we’re in a musty males-only weight room surrounded by wannabe body builders who...]]>

Many of us writers struggle to write beautifully about beautiful things. Our words fall lifeless like stones. Our imaginations mist and evaporate. We look drop-jawed at stunning wonders, feeling the ineffable sense of the thing. But when we speak or write, by comparison, we’re crude and clumsy.

That’s how I feel about most evangelical grappling with complementarity. To be clear, I can’t do much better. I’m as clumsy and skill-less as the next guy. And it is usually guys with this problem. We talk about “muscular”-this and “testosterone”-that. We write as if we’re in a musty males-only weight room surrounded by wannabe body builders who grunt, yell, and throw the weight around as if volume and recklessness create muscle. But when complementarian women celebrate gender and roles, they manage the beautiful much more thoroughly.

Perhaps we men should be quiet for a while. I know we’re to lead, and here’s an area to lead in, too. But we shouldn’t lead if we don’t know what we’re talking about or how to talk about an area. Then we should learn and then learn to speak or write in a manner that’s worthy of the calling. We want to learn to talk about complementarity (which is to say, people) in ways that portray the subject as beautifully as it (they) must exist in God’s mind. Seems that should be our goal.

Splashing Too Far Down Stream

Here’s where I think we go wrong: We begin in the wrong place. Often the conversations begin with questions about “what a woman can do” or defenses of “male headship.” Those are appropriate and necessary and beautiful conversations in their place. But getting them in their place seems to be a thorny problem. These subjects are necessary but they’re downstream. And if we broach these subjects downstream with all the tranquility-disrupting water-displacing splash of used tires illegally tossed in, then we can’t be surprised that we find ourselves unsettled and seemingly always embattled.

As I survey recent offerings across the spectrum, it seems to me that much of the discussion turns institutional too quickly. And when the conversation turns institutional–whether home or family–we’re quickly into power-related questions and struggles. There’s nothing beautiful about scrapes over power, even if we use more palatable terms like “authority.” Our favorite and biblical terms can themselves be freighted with worldly and sub-Christian meanings, with ugly images that defy the beautiful ideal we see.

A related problem is that the conversation turns pragmatic too quickly. We’re trying to have “walk it out” conversations before we first enjoy the thing itself. I am a man. It’s an indicative that proceeds the imperative to “act like men.” So it is for our sisters, too. I suspect a deeper embrace of simply being male or female–enjoying the being with less self-consciousness–might change the conversations about doing it. And I suspect there are no shortage of persons in our congregations who are struggling at the level of being long before they come to the doing, for whom narrowly rigid instruction about the doing only adds anxiety about being. This is not an issue where you can “fake it until you make it.”

I know, of course, that a lot of writing is aimed at defining what it is to be male or female. But when we’re done writing and reading those pieces, how often are we left enjoying being male and female? That, I think, is a useful litmus test for how we write and speak about this beautiful reality.

Or, are we left feeling as if we’re trying on pants two sizes too small: hopping, pulling and shimmying our thighs through increasingly narrow pant legs, losing balance, catching ourselves on dressing room walls, taking deep hold-it-in breaths to stuff our mid-sections behind a wall of denim not shaped for us, and wrestling the top button into a little recalcitrant slit with strenuously trembling arms? (Men: stop wearing skinny jeans!) If putting on complementarity feels that way, it may be an indication that we need an understanding of complementarity–at least its practice–that comes in different sizes for different shapes. For there is no one way to be a faithful man or woman, or no one way to faithfully play out the roles of husband and wife, or no one way to involve women in the service of the church. There is in all of this a particularity, a considering of the specific wife or husband, man or woman, local church, that must not be lost.

Swimming Back Up Stream

Perhaps some of our difficulties with writing beautifully stem from an imbalance in emphasis. As we root our understanding of gender and roles in the creation account, perhaps we might be wise to revisit there a missional purpose for gender. First comes the imago Dei–in His image and likeness He made them (Gen. 1:26a). Second comes dominion–to rule over all creation as stewards (Gen. 1:26b). Third comes the explanation–male and female He created them (Gen. 1:27). If there’s any significance to the order here, it must mean something along the lines of:

1. Woman is not an after-thought in the mind of God, but she bears her Creator’s image and likeness from the start and as fully as man.

2. Woman is not warming the bench in God’s mission, but has an appropriate role to play in exercising dominion as a woman who was not an after-thought in the mind of God.

3. Woman is not the same thing or interchangeable with man, but equal and different, complementary yet unique in both displaying God’s image and likeness and in dominion over creation.

If we spend all our time on some version of the third point, we’ll be in danger of not fully embracing and working out the first two. The so-called creation mandate falls on male and female differently, but also together. It works itself out in one way in the home, but another among persons not married. So our view of gender and roles has to adequately conceive of and celebrate being men and women apart from marriage. For there’s something beautiful about each gender that needs plumbing, exploring, discovering and celebrating over and over again in each generation. Perhaps if we begin where the texts begin we’ll find more shining, glimmering, overflowing trunks of treasure through which we can run our fingers as we laugh with delight in the discovery.

Conclusion

Anyway, I’m not so much concerned in this post about finer points of doctrine here. I’m concerned about how we speak of this beautiful reality. And I suspect how we speak has a lot to do with what drives us to the discussion in the first place. If it’s power that drives us, then we’ll be essentially brutal in our discourse. If it’s flourishing, we’ll find elegant and alluring ways of depicting this ineffable and wonderful reality. We might also find ways of looking at other complementarians who differ in practice without speaking of them harshly, roughly or suspiciously.

]]>https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/im-still-a-complementarian-and-theres-still-that-but/feed/0Three Problems with Asking Religious Questions of Political Candidateshttps://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/three-problems-with-asking-religious-questions-of-political-candidates/
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/three-problems-with-asking-religious-questions-of-political-candidates/#respondMon, 07 Mar 2016 05:00:00 +0000http://tgcstaging.wpengine.com/thabiti-anyabwile/three-problems-with-asking-religious-questions-of-political-candidates/Last night I tuned in to the Democratic primary debate between Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders. It’s the first Democratic debate I’ve watched during this election season. After watching a couple of big tent circus acts called the Republican debate, it was refreshing to actually see two accomplished leaders in our country spar over ideas. Granted, Clinton and Sanders share the same basic world and life view. Consequently, their debate was within a shared framework. But the exchange included very direct questions from the moderator and panel of questioners as well as some substantive policy...]]>

Last night I tuned in to the Democratic primary debate between Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders. It’s the first Democratic debate I’ve watched during this election season. After watching a couple of big tent circus acts called the Republican debate, it was refreshing to actually see two accomplished leaders in our country spar over ideas.

Granted, Clinton and Sanders share the same basic world and life view. Consequently, their debate was within a shared framework. But the exchange included very direct questions from the moderator and panel of questioners as well as some substantive policy discussion. It was far more than I’ve seen elsewhere.

Among the things that stood out to me were the direct questions about religious faith. An audience member asked Senator Sanders whether God was relevant in his view. The same questioner asked Secretary Clinton if she prayed and to whom she prayed. Frankly, the answers were lackluster.

This morning I’m more concerned about what such questions suggest about those of us who ask them and the place of such questions in our political discourse. Here are three such concerns:

The questions encourage hypocrisy.

As I think about it, Sanders and Clinton (any candidate) asked about their religious faith are tempted to hypocrisy. How do you answer that question in a way that presents yourself honestly and avoid offending significant swaths of the American voting public? The politician feels a responsibility for not offending people. They are, after all, seeking to be public servants.

But we live in such a polarized time—including religious polarization—that a non-offending reply is nearly impossible. Even evasions of the sort we saw last night will no doubt leave some a little chafed. I felt for Clinton and Sanders. Neither candidate ran on a “religious platform” or openly offered themselves as exemplars of some religious tradition. Yet they were giving an account for questions and realities they may have thought very little about or may have not resolved with any conviction. In the country’s largest “fear of man festival” the allure of hypocrisy must be tremendous. The worst thing they could do is answer well, save the answer as a talking point if asked later, and go on feeling like a debate success but having none of the power of godliness that saves. And, we religious folks then receive precisely what we’ve fomented with our questions: hypocrisy in the highest office.

The questions politicize the faith.

I believe people of faith belong in the public square. I believe they must bring their faith with them if they’re going to be people of integrity. And I believe religion—not just spirituality, but good old-fashioned religion—has a lot to offer in the way of public goods. Sanders said as much when he attributed Christianity’s neighbor love ethic to all religions. Forgetting for a moment that the ethic is really only found in a pronounced way in Christianity, Sanders was laying claim to a public good—a religious public good.

But when a candidate is asked about their faith or the “relevance of God,” they’re being asked a political question. At that point, Christianity (or any religion) becomes a weapon, a tribal spear designed to pierce the body politic. The very asking tears asunder. Candidates either speak the shibboleth and enter the tribe (so it seems; remember the hypocrisy), or they fail the test and are denied entry. And what have we done to our religion? We’ve sullied it with the smut of “political tricks” and “sound bites.” We’ve reduced what’s big, glorious, weighty and transcendent to the small, petty and sometimes ridiculous. Christianity shouldn’t be politicized even though it teaches principles necessary to godly political behavior.

It suggests a religious test for public office.

My good brother Kevin Smith tweeted this to me following the religious questions posed last night:

@ThabitiAnyabwil "but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."Hmm

Of course Kevin is correct. We have no religious test for public office in this country and that’s a good thing. The framers understood what tyranny could result in a country that politicized religion to the point of litmus testing. They also understood that being a person of religious faith does not ipso facto make you a worthy public servant. Perhaps it would be no surprise at all to the framers that the people who seem to have forgotten this lesson are religious folks themselves. In an election season where at least one primary candidate promises to “extend” the rules on torture and another is being dubbed “God’s choice” for the presidency, we’re probably wise not to give them added religious zeal and approval.

Now, I know simply asking the question doesn’t establish a formal religious test. But I also know that informal practices, cultural ways of being, have a sneaky way of becoming de facto law before they become formal law.

So, all this to say: Let those of us who love the Lord and the faith be careful about how we engage candidates about their personal faith. If we hope to reach them, we probably don’t want them thinking we only care about these questions as political points or religious tests. And we probably don’t want them skilled at being hypocrites when and if we do get to talk with them.

]]>https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/three-problems-with-asking-religious-questions-of-political-candidates/feed/0For the Record…https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/for-the-record/
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/for-the-record/#respondFri, 12 Feb 2016 05:00:00 +0000http://tgcstaging.wpengine.com/thabiti-anyabwile/for-the-record/I’m grateful for Phil Johnson’s gracious and clear reply to my post responding to his Facebook “poke” (his word) at me. I’m even more grateful that Phil isn’t interested in a prolonged brouhaha, which the Internet sees too much of on any given day and rarely results in much light. So this won’t be a prolonged reply inviting more exchange, and in a very real sense it’s not directed at Phil, though I’ll use some parts of his post as convenient jumping off points. It’s trying to set matters straight publicly–matters having to do with what I do/don’t think about some very important issues. And since I’m the only one who can definitively say what I think, I suppose I have to be the one to say it.

Let me apologize for the length of this. If you like, skip to a section that most interests you. But I’ve written at some length because I don’t intend to revisit these things. So here goes:

1. I am unwaveringly pro-life.

I believe life begins at the moment of conception. I believe that life ought and must be protected. And I consider myself consistently pro-life, which I define as valuing and wanting to defend life from the womb to the tomb. I decry as heinous, evil, tragic and sad any unjust taking of life by anyone at any time against any person of any age–pre-birth until death. Some people took exception to a tweet where I asked an interlocutor “What about the living?”, by which I meant people outside the womb. I did not in any way mean to imply that people in the womb were not among “the living.” I see how people could infer that if they want. But that is most definitely not what I meant or what I believe or what I have ever believed. I believe life begins at the moment of conception and ought to be protected by every just means.

Here are just a couple things on this blog written years before this kerfuffle:

At least since October 2012, I’ve been making the case for why I won’t vote and why I don’t think there’s a viable candidate worthy of a Christian’s vote. I know that’s a minority position. I don’t expect to be terribly persuasive. It’s just where I’m at. And I’m in good company, even if we’re a small number. Even someone who worked so tirelessly for African-American enfranchisement as W.E.B. DuBois saw in his day presidential races wherein he would not vote. Some people think I’m playing some kind of double speak here, saying I wouldn’t vote but encouraging others to vote Sanders.

So, in context, I was criticizing Democratic policies in conversation with a person who is not a Christian and is supporting Sanders. I was longing for every African-American voter to read it and avoid what it describes. Nothing in that is an endorsement of anyone; rather, I state it’s a critique–a damning critique–of the entire party.

Then my dear sister who knows me so well, who had taken the time to read the article and understand my point of view, asked me a harmless and fair question, the two of us assuming so much understanding of each other. I replied with two tweets (because who can say anything in one?):

@trillianewbell lol. I’ve long been utterly disenchanted w/ national electoral politics. But if I had to say, right now it’d be Sanders.

In answering “Sanders” was a good candidate for the vote, I was accepting a “forced choice” situation. I could have said, “No one.” And in retrospect, given all the hoopla, I wish I had and left it at that. But I was trying to have a conversation and to say Sanders is who I thought would get the vote. I was saying that because, in my opinion, he’s the candidate (only?) trying to talk at length with African-American voters about their concerns and represent those concerns the way the voters themselves would. See, for example, this endorsement from the daughter of Eric Garner:

The fact that he would produce a 4-minute commercial told almost completely in the voice and from the perspective of an African-American mother, the daughter of an unarmed man choked to death by a police officer, is unprecedented and indicative of his willingness to give at least this issue a major platform. Nobody else is doing anything remotely close to that. No one has ever done it in presidential election history. If voting is, in part, driven by self-interests and quid pro quo, I think Sanders stands a good chance of getting the vote. He’s playing the game.

All of this, of course, was in my head and folks reading tweets can be forgiven if they’re not mind readers. But having already established that (a) I don’t think I could vote for anyone and (b) that I think Democratic policies have been disastrous for Black communities, I never assumed anyone reading the tweets would think that my answering “Sanders” amounts to an endorsement, and certainly I didn’t think anyone would go so far as to say I was supporting abortion. But that’s exactly what happened.

So, to put the matter straight:
* I do not endorse Sanders.
* I do not endorse Democratic public policy, especially the sort discussed in the article.
* I do not support abortion.
* I do not endorse any candidate in the race.

3. There’s no drift: I stand by my T4G talks.

Phil wants you to believe that I’ve departed from my 2008 and 2010 T4G talks. To demonstrate that, he posts a clip and quotes from a couple of lines about repentance being the “irreducible minimum” of the gospel and “winning the culture” not being the goal of pastoral ministry.

I believe both of those things today! Join us for any service or listen online and you will hear me preach the gospel and call people to repentance and faith. I try to do that every Sunday and I don’t believe a preacher has done his job unless he does. And I have never said anywhere that my goal was to “win the culture.” If Phil thinks I’ve foisted “justice” on his comments, he’s certainly now foisting “win the culture” ideals on my tweets and posts. I continue to think it’s indicative of a slip in focus when people say “winning the culture is the goal of the church or the pastor.” That is mission drift.

But one can preach the gospel and simultaneously call for justice. In fact, if one understands the gospel properly, they must teach “what accords with sound doctrine” (i.e. the gospel). Justice accords with sound doctrine. Calling for it is part of Christian discipleship and Christian witness. The real problem here is that so many seem utterly incapable of imagining that one can see gospel proclamation as the main thing and maintain that the “whole counsel of God” or “teaching them to obey everything I have commanded” includes acts of justice, mercy, compassion, righteousness and so on. There’s no contradiction or drift there whatsoever.

Perhaps what should be noted is that some people are trying to make the entirety of my beliefs rest on one or two tweets or one or two sermons. To do that, they have to make me contradict myself. To make me contradict myself, they have to ignore plain statements I’m making now. I stand by my T4G talks, yet those talks are far from encompassing all that the Bible teaches and therefore all that I believe.

4. Hands Up, Don’t Shoot

For some time now there’s been this trope floating through the interwebs. “Thabiti defends the ‘hands up, don’t shoot’ lie.” As far as I can tell, this line goes back to a post I wrote in support of protestors and pictures I clipped and used that had protestors holding up signs with that phrase on it. From the beginning of the Michael Brown–Darren Wilson situation through the many cases that followed and in interviews, I’ve written that the point for me was not the particular details of the case (which must be adjudicated with due process) but the general pattern of injustice. The individual cases may fall one way or the other–and they have. But there’s a forest here to see. That people are still bringing up “Hands up, don’t shoot” strikes me as tying themselves to a tree in refusal to consider a forest.

5. I mentioned “justice.”

Phil is correct; his tweet and facebook post do not use the word “justice.” Fair enough. But isn’t that what we’re talking about? Aren’t we debating whether this or that cause is just, if this or that strategy is just, if this or that alliance is just? Whether we call it “biblical justice,” “social justice” or just plain “justice”, I think that’s a fair umbrella to hoist above the particular concerns. Abortion is a “justice” issue. So, too, is the treatment of citizens by agents of the state with the responsibility and right to exercise lethal force. I don’t much care which term we use (though I’m comfortable using “social justice” and fighting to distinguish it from faulty ideas). I really care that we try in our own spheres and in our own ways to advance the Bible’s notion of justice wherever we find injustice. Here’s my concern: A good number of people spend all their time labeling and discarding those of us who want to discuss and pursue justice, and it seems to me comparably less time actually working for any robust form of justice. That’s a problem for evangelicalism I think all Christians should consider if they haven’t.

6. On use of terms

Update: I want to thank Phil for removing the word “agitator” from his post following our exchange. That was gracious and kind of him. That puts the matter to rest as far as any personal exchange between him and I goes. I’m leaving this original section hoping it’s beneficial for subsequent readers.

Original comment: Phil wants to use “agitator” to describe me. Fine. He want’s to use a textbook definition of the term and give a little history. I learned a lot from that. And in the end, he wants to set aside concern about the term and argue it has nothing to do with “race” and everything to do with the “agitator’s” political views. I respect Phil. And he’s shown me respect in his post. But that’s a naive and laughable notion. King was not called an “agitator” because of his “political opinions.” He was called an agitator by racists because of his “race” and because he sought to undermine their unjust system. We’re now discussing many of the things King himself addressed in his short lifetime, across dividing lines that look frighteningly similar, using the same words to label, and we want to act as if it’s just language. It’s not. Not any more than if I were to call Phil a “racist.” I’m simply trying to help the discussion, especially for those watching who might stumble before they hear well. If my counterparts aren’t willing to consider that and work on it, then they prove some of the worst thoughts many have. That’s sad to me.

And I should respond to the notion that my using a loaded term like “social justice” was equivalent to Phil’s use of the term “agitator.” I agree wholeheartedly that both terms are loaded. However, my term describes issues that we can debate. Phil uses a term to describe me. The entirety of his post was an expression of concern or doubt regarding me, my drift, etc. That’s the difference–the significant difference. He gets personal in a way that I haven’t with him. At no point have I called into question his commitment to anything vital. Quite the contrary. I’ve only tried to express respect for him. “Agitator” does not communicate the same for me. I tried to give everyone a sense of how the word is heard by others. Rather than reciprocate in kindness, Phil doubles down. He charges me with creating a climate that makes his son’s job more difficult and dangerous when I write generally about injustice among police officers, not knowing his son. But he doesn’t recognize how historically “agitator” language has made life more difficult and dangerous when people use it specifically of individual African-American leaders. There’s a blind spot here, but it’s not solely mine.

7. Yes, I still stand with protestors.

Now Phil and others want to say that means I stand with the organization #BlackLivesMatter. I’ve repeatedly clarified that I do not. Even in the DG video linked above, I point to the unhinging of biblical morality from the current #BlackLivesMatters movement.

But I do stand by the hard-earned and constitutionally protected right of people to protest in support of the principle “Black lives matter.” I do not support violent protests. I do not support looting or vandalism. All of which I’ve been slanderously said to encourage and condone. I do not. I support the legal right of people to assemble.That right is particularly important to African Americans who for a couple hundred years were denied–sometimes violently–that very right. I think the cause is just. I think the laws of the land grant the right to protest. And I don’t think there’s any contradiction between legal rights to protest granted by the government and submission to authorities a la Romans 13 and other places. In this case, protest is submission because government grants the right.

8. Arguing about racism and abortion

That’s not an argument I feel compelled to have. Someone wants to argue abortion is the “biggest sin.” Okay. I see why they’d say that. Someone wants to argue racism is the biggest sin? Okay. After a couple hundred years of chattel slavery, followed by counter-Reconstruction, the rise of Jim Crow, the terror of hate groups like the Ku Klux Klan and the White Citizens Council, lynchings, castrations, the burning of black cities and neighborhoods, redlining, separate and unequal education facilities, employment discrimination and all the social attitudes, mores and enforcement practices that go with them… I can see why they might say “racism is the biggest sin.” But, honestly, must we choose between the two? Shouldn’t we fight with all our might against both of them and against every injustice? That’s where I stand. That’s why single-issue, abortion-is-biggest, don’t-talk-about-racism appeals aren’t persuasive to me. Neither abortion or racism are the only thing to champion. I think the Christian heart has to be large enough to include both and much more.

9. I have a son, too.

Phil disclosed his concern for his son, an officer serving admirably and courageously in a tough neighborhood. Phil, and many others, think I’ve made his son’s job more difficult and dangerous by the things I’ve written.

I honestly don’t know how that could actually be the case. It seems to assume either that I endorse violence against police officers or that criminal elements in his son’s neighborhood are reading my blog. I highly doubt any criminal element in any neighborhood is tuning in to Pure Church. And I’ve never called for violence against an officer. Yes, blue lives matter. Absolutely. I wrote the following on December 10, 2014:

I take it for granted that a reasonable person understands that in calling for criminal justice and law enforcement reform I am not suggesting that all officers and staff involved in this system are racists or wicked or anything like that. The people who work in these systems have the most difficult jobs, often without the best resources and with little thanks. This is not a screed against those persons in uniform who put it on the line day-in and day-out for our collective well-being. This post is a jeremiad against those officers and practices that betray the many good women and men who serve in Law Enforcement and who rob the service of its dignity and respect by their corruption. It’s those unfaithful officers and administrators who make this a pressing and lethal civil rights issue.

I’ve always believed that. But I’m learning that I can’t take anything for granted in these conversations. That’s shame on me.

But let the record be set straight: I do not wish harm on any officer of the law. I’ve never wanted to say this for fear of it looking self-serving to some, but I have police officers and state troopers in my family, too. I want every officer’s safety and I want their families whole and I want officers to use their considerable authority justly and to be called to account when they don’t. What I want for officers is, in fact, the same things I want for the families they police.

You see, I have a son, too. And I have my fear for him. He’s on the other side of this equation. And we’ve chosen to live in and minister to one of the most dangerous neighborhoods in my city. He’s growing up in a similar kind of danger Phil writes about. But while police officers can offer an effective defense by simply saying they feared for their life, my 9-year old son if in the place of Tamir Rice and others faces the prospect of being killed then branded a “thug,” “a demon” and so on. In life and in death in this current climate, he has no justification for playing with a toy gun, talking on a cell phone in Wal-Mart, having a mental health issue, or even running away when he’s afraid. All of that can get him killed.

I can identify with Phil because I know what I feel for my son. And if I don’t ring the bell “Blue lives matter” more often, it’s because I’m looking at my son and longing for him the way I suspect an officer’s immediate family does. I get that some in this discussion really want me to ring the “Blue lives matter” bell more. But for that to happen, some of them are going to have to unabashedly ring the “Black lives matter” principle more.

CONCLUSION

Last year this time I sat in California with a former officer for a couple hours discussing these very things. We came into the meeting prepared for the worst, I think. We left the meeting as brothers, in charity, and feeling we could see all the same issues on both sides, but because of our experiences we leaned in slightly different directions. I think we both thought we should wave the other person’s banner a bit more than we do, and that might give the other’s arms a little rest. I suspect that would happen a lot if folks sat and talked.

We all care about our sons. That’s why we need these discussions and we need to have them like Christians–charitably, graciously, winsomely, hopefully and truthfully. I’ve written enough here for ill-willed people to make a lot of hey with. But I hope you, dear reader, will charitably accept this as my statement of where I stand on issues of controversy of late. Like Phil, I’m now signing off of this discussion.

]]>https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/for-the-record/feed/0I’m Happy to Talk with Dr. Philhttps://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/im-happy-to-talk-with-dr-phil/
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/im-happy-to-talk-with-dr-phil/#respondThu, 11 Feb 2016 05:00:00 +0000http://tgcstaging.wpengine.com/thabiti-anyabwile/im-happy-to-talk-with-dr-phil/Incidents in the country have been rearranging the evangelical landscape for the last couple of years now. Not any of the incidents involving typical “culture war” issues, like homosexuality, gay marriage, and abortion. Apart from some fraying between older and younger evangelicals, the evangelical phalanx stands tall and strong on those fronts. But mention “justice” and that wall of evangelical troops splits like the Red Sea and turns against itself. Men who worked as fellow combatants in the traditional “culture war” begin to suspect and even attack one another when “justice” becomes the topic. Case in point: My brother in...]]>

Incidents in the country have been rearranging the evangelical landscape for the last couple of years now. Not any of the incidents involving typical “culture war” issues, like homosexuality, gay marriage, and abortion. Apart from some fraying between older and younger evangelicals, the evangelical phalanx stands tall and strong on those fronts.

But mention “justice” and that wall of evangelical troops splits like the Red Sea and turns against itself. Men who worked as fellow combatants in the traditional “culture war” begin to suspect and even attack one another when “justice” becomes the topic.

Case in point: My brother in Christ, Phil Johnson, had this to say of me recently on his Facebook feed:

So, according to Phil, I’m now “an agitator for the radical left #BlackLivesMatter movement.” And, apparently, I’m no longing “arguing for a more biblical, gospel-centered approach to ministry.” If I understand this correctly, I’m the one now suffering “mission drift,” one swept so powerfully to the left that the Bible and gospel have lost its center in my ministry.

So much could be said here. But I don’t want to risk saying more than I ought to say. I want to say only what needs to be said. The lines that follow are meant to be crisp so that I don’t sin in saying too much. They’re not meant to be curt or clipped as if to communicate anger or personal animus. Until this, I’ve never had anything but pleasant interactions with Phil. I hope such pleasantry continues, but his Facebook post needs reply. Here goes:

1. “Justice” and justice in its “social” implications are biblical terms and ideas. To the extent that Phil (or anyone) rejects “social justice,” then they’re rejecting the Bible. Not me. From the OT prophets, to provisions in the Law, to the ethical teaching of our Lord, the Bible is replete with calls to justice socially concerned and God regularly chastises His people for failing to establish it. Some of my evangelical friends have a curious way of ignoring those texts and any application of them to things other than homosexuality, gay “marriage,” religious freedom, or abortion. All of those are justice issues with social implications requiring a biblical address. But they simply are not all the issues the Bible would have us address in the pursuit of justice. So, I’m eager that we not give “justice” or “social justice” over to the “left.” Those are Bible words and ideas that Bible believers ought and need to consider deeply.

2. Everyone should know that the “agitator” language Phil uses here has an ugly history that Phil probably does not mean. Dr. King was called an “agitator.” Frederick Douglass was called an “agitator.” In fact, nearly every African American that’s ever stood up for African Americans has been called, usually by white racists–and sometimes scared African Americans, an “agitator.” It’s not a good look on professing Christians who should disavow the racist past and work harder to use terms free from that taint. To be clear: I am most decidedly NOT suggesting that Phil Johnson is a racist. I am saying he’s using a term here that in the historical context of struggle between Blacks and Whites was used regularly by White racists. In doing so, Phil, you’re provoking some things you may not be aware of and conjuring a history many people find problematic. Now, when we’re talking about justice, “agitator” should never be a dirty word. It’s what people of conscience should do–whether the issue is abortion and gay marriage (see all those agitators using their constitutional rights to carry signs and protest) or the issue is police mistreatment of unarmed civilians. If you want to talk, let’s talk about the issue and drop the coded and freighted language associated by many with a racist past and not used today of others similarly using their right to speak out and protest about justice issues they care about. We can talk without the name calling, especially the names that some of us hear in association with racists. We’re better than that.

3. I support #BlackLivesMatter as a matter of principle and I support people’s rights to say so. For nearly two years now, some evangelical friends have acted as if to say my life, my son’s life, the lives of all Black people matter is tantamount to saying that the lives of others don’t matter and is racist towards whites. Interestingly, many of those people can’t seem to bring themselves to even utter the phrase. They can’t bring themselves to say publicly, in principle, “Black lives matter.” And, beloved, there is a world of difference between affirming that principle and offering anything that looks like institutional support for some website or some particular organization. I support the principle. I think it’s incontrovertible. I don’t think it should be difficult for any reasonable person to utter or hashtag. If Genesis 1 is true (and it is), then “Black lives matter” is also true because God made us in His image and likeness. People who cannot or, better, refuse to distinguish between fellow Christians who hold the principle and people who are not yet Christians who may tout a variety of things Christians never would fail to extend Christian charity or the benefit of the doubt. They carry on a political and polemical conversation when many of their Christian brothers are having a principled one. I should point out, a biblical and gospel-centered principled conversation. Which is what makes Johnson’s assertion to the contrary so problematic for Johnson and many white evangelicals who perhaps assume his view. They don’t hear the Bible or a foundational doctrinal aspect of the gospel when they hear their fellow Christians say, “Black lives matter.” Brothers, the imago Dei is bound up with that statement for your brothers and sisters of darker hue.

4. Finally, the Thabiti of 2010 is the same Thabiti in 2016. Johnson links to my T4G sermon wherein I was asked to give a biblical theology of “race.” I stand behind that talk and wouldn’t change much of anything in it–except to add more strongly some words that prevent people from doing precisely what Phil seems to do with it here. If you watch the panel discussion in follow up to this talk, I think I state again and more clearly that nothing in the talk should be understood as denying the reality of racism. So while “race” is a pseudo-scientific, theological, historical and social fiction, racism is very real. Some conservatives want to make the former a denial of the latter. I never did that, said that, or believed that. Then or now. Really what should happen is Phil should take a listen to the sermon and the panel and read a host of things I’ve blogged since and understand there’s no contradiction. In fact, I think it’s imperative that everyone understand what’s argued so powerfully in Racecraft: It is racism that gave us the false doctrine of “race.” We only talk about “race” because of the racist past that erected it as a theory for the supremacy or inferiority of “races.” But evangelicals have done so little theology and reflection on race and racism that they’re unable and at points unwilling to work through this truth. There’s so much “white guilt” and “white denial” that some seize upon “race doesn’t exist” as an assertion that racism and it’s concomitant problems doesn’t exist either. That’s a dangerous mistake that imperils good will between whites and blacks and even threatens unity among white and black Christians.

So, Phil, I got nothing but love for you, your ministry, and your consistent fight for theological truths that I share and cherish. Keep fighting the good fight, brother. But I’m not your enemy. Even if we disagree about some of the current cultural skirmishes and problems, I’m not your enemy. If you ever want to talk/write (privately or publicly) like brothers through our differences, I think over the years I’ve proven I’m open to that. You even have close friends who have done that with me from time to time on these very topics. We’re capable of better representing each other–even in disagreement–than you did with your Facebook post. In fact, I think your Facebook post demonstrates that you need to talk to someone about some things you’re clearly not understanding–both about others and perhaps about your own rhetoric and position. Not to get too far ahead in the calendar, but next year, Lord willing, The Front Porch hopes to host a conference themed “Just Gospel” on these very issues. More to come later. You’d be welcome and I think you’d be helped.

The Lord bless you and keep you, brother.

]]>https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/im-happy-to-talk-with-dr-phil/feed/0Four Simple Ways to Stand in Solidarity with Muslimshttps://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/four-simple-ways-to-stand-in-solidarity-with-muslims/
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/four-simple-ways-to-stand-in-solidarity-with-muslims/#respondMon, 21 Dec 2015 05:00:00 +0000http://tgcstaging.wpengine.com/thabiti-anyabwile/four-simple-ways-to-stand-in-solidarity-with-muslims/The American public continues wrestling with its understand of Islam. The wrestling makes sense. We can understand the confusion. Islam and Muslims are not a monolith. Just by way of example, The Washington Post published an op-ed today encouraging people not to express solidarity with Muslims by wearing the hijab. The same article references other Muslims who advocate such expressions and created “World Hijab Day.”

People can’t be blamed for asking, “Which is it?”

But we can be blamed if we fail to express solidarity with Muslim neighbors and friends–not primarily because they’re Muslims–but because they, like us, bear the image and likeness of God and are worthy of dignity and fair treatment. The call for solidarity rests on a firmer foundation than mere cultural pluralism. And because it does, the call to solidarity actually requires greater shows of understanding and compassion.

Here are a few simple suggestions for showing solidarity with Muslim neighbors and friends:

1. Oppose All Bigotry

Can we be honest? A good deal of fear and bigotry toward Muslims comes from Christian quarters. Many Christians feel justified in these sinful attitudes. They point to terrorist attacks, the worse representatives of Islam, and their favorite hate-peddling political pundits for “proof” that their animus is justified. But it’s not. Not when our Lord says, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you…” (Matt. 5:43-44). The Savior’s words leave no room for His disciples to hate. Solidarity requires we reject such attitudes.

So let’s oppose bigotry that can creep into our own hearts. And let’s speak a word of correction to others in our circles who express hatred toward Muslims. Let’s avoid the hysteria of social media. Instead, let’s speak what edifies (Eph. 4:29) and offer a word of grace for those made in God’s image (Jam. 3:9).

2. Pray for Muslims

That’s there in Matt. 5:44 as well. “Pray for those who persecute you.” We show love-motivated solidarity when we pray for our “enemies.” Our prayer should be for their salvation, yes. But we should pray for so much more. We should pray for mutual understanding. We should pray for peace and justice in predominantly Muslim countries.We should pray for just and fair laws toward Muslims in our own country. We should pray for the health and well-being of Muslim people and neighbors. We show solidarity best when we bow our heads and bend our knees to God to intercede for others.

Some may be asking, “What about praying together at inter-faith services?” I would not commend that. Prayer is a covenant activity we share with others in covenant with God. Inter-faith prayer meetings blur some important distinctions about the nature of God and about the worship He finds pleasing. They confuse more than they clarify, and we’re left wrestling with the question, “Don’t we all worship the same God?” We don’t. Solidarity can’t come at the expense of clarity.

3. Protest Injustice

We’re not at our best when we burn Qu’rans, desecrate mosques, or curtail religious freedom. Some Christians feel like they’re “losing” when they see Muslims making “gains.” They oppose the building of Islamic centers in “their back yards.” They don’t want accommodations to be made so Muslims can pray or wear traditional clothing in driver’s photos. Far too often we’re on the side of differential treatment of our Muslim neighbors. I get it. We’re trying to protect ourselves and “hold the line.” But it seems to me that loving people made in God’s image requires us to let go of our “winning and losing” (i.e., die to self) to champion the cause of the mistreated.

If our Muslim neighbors gather to lament the destruction of a study center or mosque, we should find a way to join them in their lament. If our Muslim neighbors believe a law prevents “the free exercise” of their religious faith, we should consider their point of view, study the issue, and “take their side” (which is taking the side of our Constitution) when we think righteousness and the law require it. “An injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” That applies to our Muslim neighbors, too.

4. Show Hospitality

Perhaps the oldest, time-tested, culturally-respected for of solidarity is hospitality. It’s a “language” our Muslim neighbors from the Middle East understand. More importantly, it’s a command Christians who honor their Bibles must obey. It’s a qualification for church leadership and a means whereby some have entertained angels. Love for strangers creates oneness with them. You may not be the marching type, so you won’t join a protest. You may be the quiet type, so you’re not likely to reprove someone verbally. You may perhaps struggle in prayer; join the club. But you cook and eat everyday. Ask a Muslim friend to join you or go out to a meal. Forget the pork products that day. Receive them in your home and your heart. That neighborly love may do much to express solidarity with God’s image bearers. It may do much to create a context for seeing them come to know Jesus as He offers himself in the gospel.

Conclusion

We’re living in an age of extremism. We’re kidding ourselves if we don’t think we have extremists on “our side.” It’s possible for everyone to go too far. So we need a tight rein on our hearts and out mouths. In an age where some people find it easy to separate over ethnic, cultural, religious and political differences while some other people blur those differences in the name of solidarity, faithful and thinking Christians have an opportunity to model loving solidarity while disagreeing. It’s a marvelous opportunity for the kingdom and the gospel. May the Lord help us seize it.

]]>https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/four-simple-ways-to-stand-in-solidarity-with-muslims/feed/0Muslims and Christians Do NOT Worship the Same Godhttps://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/muslims-and-christians-do-not-worship-the-same-god/
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/muslims-and-christians-do-not-worship-the-same-god/#respondSat, 19 Dec 2015 05:00:00 +0000http://tgcstaging.wpengine.com/thabiti-anyabwile/muslims-and-christians-do-not-worship-the-same-god/The recent move of Wheaton College to place on administrative leave one of its faculty has sparked debate about whether Muslims and Christians worship the same God. This debate recurs because of the culture’s tendency to flatten religious differences into nebulous and impersonal ideas about “God” and because of widespread ignorance of religious faith. As Stephen Prothero points out in God Is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions that Run the World–and Why Their Differences Matter, our happily ignorant “pluralism” can in religious matters lead to car bombs exploding, bullets fired through office buildings, hostage situations at abortion clinics, and waves of genocidal violence.

Religions create a lot of problems in the world. Ignorance of religion compounds those problems. Arguing that Christians and Muslims worship the same God is often well-intended. But in a world increasingly filled with clashes between adherents of Islam and the west, this confusion is dangerous. Muslims and Christians do not worship the same God and that matters immensely!

God

Muslims hold that “God is one.” Allah has no partners and assigning partners to him is shirk, the highest blasphemy. Christians believe “God is one in three Persons.” Each Person in the Trinity is fully and eternally God. Yet there is one God. Our Muslim neighbors believe Christians are guilty of the greatest sin–making partners with God. Christians believe their Muslim neighbors are guilty of the greatest sin–idolatry.

The two views of the nature of God are irreconcilable.

Duty

Muslims believe that man’s duty toward Allah is to submit to his will. The goal of Islam is not salvation, but to bring the entire world under the rule of Allah–dar al Islam. The Christian believes that the most fundamental duty toward God–out of which obedience arises–is repentance and faith in the Son of God, Jesus Christ. No one knows God who does not know the Son who is the only mediator between God and man. The goal of Christianity is the salvation of sinners through the righteousness, substitutionary atonement and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The goals of the two religions could not be more different. And because the goals differ, how we worship and how we act in the world also radically differ.

Enemies

Despite all the debates about who is or is not a “true Muslim,” it cannot be doubted that significant numbers of Muslims believe it’s permissible, even necessary, to strive in the cause of Islam. Some believe that includes violent defense of Islam. The Lord Jesus Christ teaches that Christians are to love our enemies. Christians must turn the other cheek. Christians do not wrestle with flesh and blood but with spiritual forces of evil in high places.

Because Christians and Muslims define their enemies differently and respond to them differently, we cannot be said to worship the same God.

Conclusion

I could go on. Though at many places there is a common history (both groups come from Abraham), a common vocabulary (i.e., faith, worship, etc.) and increasingly a common address in the world, we may be tempted to think there’s more in common than is truly the case. Let us not make that mistake. The differences are radical and they lead to wildly different ethics. Sobriety and charity require us to lovingly state this truth and work out the implications.

]]>https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/muslims-and-christians-do-not-worship-the-same-god/feed/0A Call to Evangelical Pastors: Let’s Do Our Part to End Police Brutality and Mass Incarcerationhttps://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/a-call-to-evangelical-pastors-lets-do-our-part-to-end-police-brutality-and-mass-incarceration/
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/a-call-to-evangelical-pastors-lets-do-our-part-to-end-police-brutality-and-mass-incarceration/#respondWed, 25 Nov 2015 05:00:00 +0000http://tgcstaging.wpengine.com/thabiti-anyabwile/a-call-to-evangelical-pastors-lets-do-our-part-to-end-police-brutality-and-mass-incarceration/In the Laquan McDonald case we’ve received another warning against uncritical support for and unaccountable uses of authority.

It’s another shooting ruled a murder by officials that would have gone unchallenged and unaddressed were it not for video evidence to the contrary. Prosecutors have rightly moved to press charges against officer Van Dyke for the shooting. At this writing, it’s unclear whether the other officers who witnessed the shooting and participated in a false police report alleging McDonald “lunged at” officers will face any charges.

Here’s what’s clear to this pastor: Nothing will change for the better unless people of sound judgment and good character act.

I have to believe that among those of sound judgment and good character Christian pastors must be at the forefront. Our Bibles call us to be examples to the flock in virtue and practical living. Nowhere is our virtue more tested and our people in need of not only good teaching but good examples than in the real world travesties and tragedies like the shooting of Laquan McDonald. And at no time is our example and leadership more urgent than when such travesties and tragedies are ubiquitous, everywhere, seemingly all the time. How do we think our people will pursue justice if their leaders won’t?

After watching the video of McDonald being slayed by a uniformed officer, I tried to get clear in my own heart and head what I was for and against as a pastor. Here’s my short list of affirmations and denials:

The Bible.

I believe the Bible to be sufficient and authoritative in matters of justice.

I deny the notion that the Bible is silent, insufficient or unconcerned with justice in human societies.

Christian Discipleship.

I believe justice, mercy and faithfulness are weightier matters of the law and integral to Christian discipleship; they are to not simply be espoused but practiced in ecclesial and secular community with others.

I deny the notion that justice concerns are necessarily “liberal,” “progressive,” or “social gospel” aberrations or are ancillary to Christian discipleship.

Pastoral Responsibility.

I believe pastors have a moral responsibility to convey hope to suffering and marginalized people—and such hope cannot be abstracted from the sufferer’s context lest it become escapism and empty hope.

I deny the notion that a pastor’s only responsibility before God is to preach the word, as if the pastor is not more fundamentally a disciple who also has to bear faithful witness in seeking justice in submission to the Lord.

The Church.

I believe the local church is absolutely vital for both the evangelizing—disciple-making mission of God and for the mercy—good works ethics of the kingdom.

I deny that teaching which makes the mission of the church exclusively “spiritual” as if a spiritual mission has no real world consequences or imperatives and I deny that one could be considered a faithful Christian or Christian church while divorcing the truth of scripture from the practice of that truth.

Public Policy.

I believe biblical, Christian witness in matters of public policy is both a freedom granted to all U.S. Christians and a necessary beneficial calling/vocation for some.

I deny the notion that Christians should retreat from the public policy arena.

Possible Progress.

I believe significant progress in racial justice is possible in our lifetimes and that such progress is already evident in the advances earned by so many over the centuries.

I deny that Christians have reason to give in to that despair, despondency and unbelief which trusts neither God’s good providence nor the ability of people made in His image to do genuine good to and for one another.

Love

I believe that the greatest of all virtues is love, which if faith’s highest expression, covers over a multitude of sin, does not rejoice in wrongdoing, does no harm to its neighbor, is redemptive and transformative, and must be shown not only in words but in deeds.

I deny the possibility that one can be loving and sit idly by while known injustice continues, forsake the aid of brethren in the faith who are in distress, or abandon society to its corruptions without calling men everywhere to repent, believe the gospel, and follow the Lord Jesus Christ in the obedience that comes from faith.

Of course, pastors trade in affirmations and denials all the time. It’s our stock and trade. And we can so easily hollow the words of any action. So in addition to affirmations and denials, I tried very earnestly to think of what I could do to contribute to an end to police brutality and the war on drugs and foster a genuinely just system of police enforcement and criminal procedure. So here are my very broad commitments:

Investigating claims of injustice so that I might be educated and prepared for sound action.

Demonstrating against injustice.

Advocating for public accountability

Bringing moral pressure to bear on justice issues–especially the end of police brutality, misconduct and the war on drugs.

Brokering solutions and strategies for resolving pressing injustices.

There’s a lot of “how” to work out in all of this. I don’t pretend to have magic answers that everyone else in the world lacks. I simply feel the need to join what I pray is the growing number of citizens and people of faith who see the need for massive reform in order to protect life.

Here’s my question for you, especially if you’re a pastor: Would you join me in these basic affirmations, denials and commitments? Would you be willing to work together to build a network of evangelical pastors to end mass incarceration and police misconduct?

]]>https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/a-call-to-evangelical-pastors-lets-do-our-part-to-end-police-brutality-and-mass-incarceration/feed/0Bits and Pieces for Young Ministers: Discipleship, Rest and Readinghttps://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/bits-and-pieces-for-young-ministers-discipleship-rest-and-reading/
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/bits-and-pieces-for-young-ministers-discipleship-rest-and-reading/#respondMon, 16 Nov 2015 05:00:00 +0000http://tgcstaging.wpengine.com/thabiti-anyabwile/bits-and-pieces-for-young-ministers-discipleship-rest-and-reading/I’m getting older. It had to happen, I guess. While I still think of myself as that 20-something (30-something early in the morning) young man, the rest of the world takes glances at my white hair and gray whiskers and thinks to itself, “Old guy.” Sometimes well-meaning younger dudes referring to me as “older statesman” or “pioneer” or some such thing that’s meant to be a compliment but depends for its value on my being old. Turns out there are a lot of ways of calling folks “old.” But I’m okay with being older. I enjoy it. I’ve aged out...]]>

I’m getting older. It had to happen, I guess. While I still think of myself as that 20-something (30-something early in the morning) young man, the rest of the world takes glances at my white hair and gray whiskers and thinks to itself, “Old guy.” Sometimes well-meaning younger dudes referring to me as “older statesman” or “pioneer” or some such thing that’s meant to be a compliment but depends for its value on my being old. Turns out there are a lot of ways of calling folks “old.”

But I’m okay with being older. I enjoy it. I’ve aged out of most trends. I’m settled in life and career, so I don’t have to muscle my way through the ever-changing contexts and challenges many younger people face. And every once in a while I can just do what I want without explaining it to anybody. They look at me and think, “Well, he’s old. Leave him alone.”

It’s not so bad getting older. One other benefit is you’ve hopefully learned one or two things that might be valuable to those coming behind you. Not earth-shaking, new and novel things. But, well, “old” things that have enduring value. From time to time, someone younger asks you for those nuggets they call “wisdom” but you call “life.” Like the other day. A very enthusiastic young man emailed to ask me questions about how to balance life and ministry and how to fit in things like rest and reading. I’m old enough to get emails like that fairly often. So, on the off chance it might be helpful to others, here’s an email I sent to a young pastor trying to find balance to do it all in his family and ministry. This old man hopes it helps.

————————–

Dear Young Minister,

I pray you’re well, brother. CONGRATULATIONS on the new role there at the church! I pray the Lord gives you grace and favor in all of your callings: Christian disciple, husband, and now pastor.

Thank you for the great questions and for the opportunity to speak into your ministry there. I’m not sure I have profound wisdom for you, but perhaps these basic thoughts might be helpful. Feel free to write back with follow-up questions.

1. Don’t Build a Culture of Discipleship

Instead, build relationships with as many people as you can in the church. You’re not engaged in a project. You’re called to simply encourage people in their walk toward heaven with Christ. If you task yourself with building a “culture of discipleship,” which sounds really huge and vague at the same time, you put a lot of pressure on yourself and the church. Remember, a church is a family. What’s critical is relationship. As a new, young pastor, build relationships. That will give you context for delivering meaningful encouragement to folks.

2. Don’t Balance Your Life

“Balance” is a real trap and myth. I’m not saying you should commit to a life of overwork. I’m saying that priorities is a better principle for ordering your life than balance. Plus, the priorities are set for you in the scripture. Put things in order:

* God first

* Your wife second

* Your children third

* Your ministry fourth

Keep that order and you’ll also find that the priorities have a way of pushing blessings down through each level. If you keep a close walk with the Lord, that tends to bless your relationship with your wife. If you love your wife well, that will spill over into the entire family. If you care for your family well, then you will be both qualified for and a blessing in your ministry.

This, of course, means you have to say “no” to many very good things in order to say “yes” to the best things. Which, by the way, is one of the things pastors need to model for their people. Live this set of priorities as graciously and consistently as you can and I think you’ll achieve what most people mean when they say “balance.”

3. Rest Before You Get Tired

Burnout rates in ministry are very high because not only is caring for people demanding but also because many people make the mistake of thinking they’re “on” 24-7. Don’t let yourself begin to live and act as if you cannot or should not limit the amount of time and energy that you give to your fourth priority (ministry). Here are some thoughts on resting before you get tired:

* Every Monday morning, or maybe Sunday evening, spend an hour or two with your wife planning and reviewing the weeks ahead. Plan the nights you’ll have people over and the nights you’ll keep for just your family. Coordinate the drop off of kids (if you have any) at school or kids’ programs. Use this time to really partner and plan your life together.

* Keep your work days to 8-9 hours. There will be plenty of days when you will have a late evening or an early start. Flex your time if your pastors will allow you. You’re helped to do this if you implement the first bullet above. And don’t feel guilty if on Tuesday you’re going to have to work 12 hours and on Wednesday you work 4. You’re not cheating the ministry. You’re honoring your family and pacing yourself for the long haul.

* Plan and take your vacations. Americans are terrible at this. We don’t vacate until we’re nearly dead. It’s better to take your vacations across the year, perhaps piggy-backing some holidays to get a bit more bang for your vacation buck.

* As much as possible, rest when the rest of the world rests. If you can take Saturdays off, take them off so you can be with your family and rest when others do. Work Monday-Friday if you can. There are holidays when you have to work while others are off (Christmas, Easter, etc). But on other holidays, get out of town, turn off your social media, and rest like everyone else.

So, plan your rest and rest as planned. Rest before you get tired. You won’t regret it—neither will your people since you’ll have energy and life to serve them.

4. Making Disciples

As for discipling others, my approach is built on a few simple things:

* Books—I read them and I give them out. Think about the books that have blessed you most and read them with other people. You’ve already read it, so it doesn’t require a great deal of prep from you. Plus you get to give a part of yourself to your people, which helps strengthen the relationship with them. A couple good books read with a handful of people each year will bless the congregation greatly. Over time it’ll change people’s reading habits and preferences as you put good titles in their hands. Of course, use your Bible at every turn.

* Meals—breakfast, lunch and dinner are wonderful times to get with people in a meaningful, loving context. Practice table fellowship. Don’t over plan the time. Go with a couple meaningful questions you want to ask, but leave space to just talk about both spiritual and everyday things. Lots of life happens over a meal.

* Listening—Most of the ministry you do in people’s lives happens as a consequence of asking a few good questions and listening a great deal. Learn to listen. Refuse the pressure to have all the answers. Be Socratic in your method and people will feel heard and will often talk themselves into the solutions they need. As you listen to more and more people in your congregation, you’ll get to know your church very well. That’ll help in everything from knowing how to apply the word in preaching to your people, to knowing how to pray for the growth of the church, to standing in the gap as an intercessor against the besetting sins of the saints.

I hope something here is helpful. Feel free to follow up. But one last thing: I’m happy to encourage you and share a word from time to time. But it’s most important that you have these conversations with your pastors there. They may not have all the answers, but part of the joy of ministry is discovering some answers together in your own context.

5. On Reading:

My current reading habits are all over the place. I’m finding life as a planter a bit different than life in an established church. When I was in Cayman in an established church, my schedule looked like this:

1. Enjoyment—just things I’m interested to read in any given time. Could be fiction, history, theology, whatever.

2. Ministry—things that I need to understand or know in order to do the work. Could be something on a counseling issue, a theological issue the elders are thinking through, or a practical thing that helps with the work.

3. Discipleship—mine and others. I read things that help me grow in a specific area or that I’m reading with others to help them grow.

How much do I read in a given week?I really don’t know. It varies. I’ve never tried to tally it. There’s a general sense of always reading, but no quota I’m trying to hit. I guess reading is just a part of my and my family’s life.

Right now, Sensing Jesus is having the greatest impact on me. I highly recommend it—especially for a young man just beginning in ministry.

Much love and the Lord bless and keep you,

Thabiti

]]>https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/bits-and-pieces-for-young-ministers-discipleship-rest-and-reading/feed/0Smarts and Lovehttps://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/smarts-and-love/
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/smarts-and-love/#respondWed, 05 Aug 2015 04:00:00 +0000http://tgcstaging.wpengine.com/thabiti-anyabwile/smarts-and-love/There is vanity under the sun, An emptiness common to man. Smart guys who care nothing for love, And those who love with little thought. Each regards the other as the worse problem when desperately they need each other to be whole.]]>

There is vanity under the sun,

An emptiness common to man.

Smart guys who care nothing for love,

And those who love with little thought.

Each regards the other as the worse problem

when desperately they need each other to be whole.

]]>https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/smarts-and-love/feed/0Somebody Prayed for Mehttps://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/somebody-prayed-for-me/
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/somebody-prayed-for-me/#respondWed, 15 Apr 2015 04:00:00 +0000http://tgcstaging.wpengine.com/thabiti-anyabwile/somebody-prayed-for-me/I’ve only felt a sense of calling this clearly and strongly on one other occasion. That’s when I first saw my wife and knew in an instant that I would marry her. A certainty something like that attends this call to be a part of the Anacostia River Church mission. Two weeks ago, on Easter Sunday, the spiritual family of God called Anacostia River Church (ARC) launched its first public service. The service came with the swiftness of a flooded river. Before we knew it, we were busy about ordering supplies, organizing ministry teams, and “launching” a church. I don’t...]]>

I’ve only felt a sense of calling this clearly and strongly on one other occasion. That’s when I first saw my wife and knew in an instant that I would marry her. A certainty something like that attends this call to be a part of the Anacostia River Church mission.

Two weeks ago, on Easter Sunday, the spiritual family of God called Anacostia River Church (ARC) launched its first public service. The service came with the swiftness of a flooded river. Before we knew it, we were busy about ordering supplies, organizing ministry teams, and “launching” a church. I don’t know who first coined the term “launch” when it comes to church “plants” (an interesting mixed metaphor), but they were onto something for we were jumping and flinging ourselves fully into the work! And what a joy it’s been!

People frequently ask me, “How’s the church plant going?” I’m grateful for the love and interest that prompts that query. But I’ve yet to find an adequate way of describing the great privilege I have of shepherding along with two incredibly gifted and godly elders, or the slight staggering I feel when I think of the amazing people the Lord has sent on this mission, or the awe at seeing how the Lord has provided for us at every turn, or the quickening happening in my soul as we work to evangelize the neighborhood. Starting a new church produces a lot of good fruit when the Lord blesses it!

Some of the ARC family about to go door-to-door with the gospel and invitations to our launch.

But one thing amazes me more than any other. I don’t know why it amazes me so, but it does. It’s this: the number of people who pray for our efforts in southeast DC.

Now, I know Christians pray all the time and pray for all kinds of things. And I know a lot people who say, “I’m praying for you,” really mean “I wish you well” instead of actually praying. But that’s not what we’re encountering. God’s people are interceding for us and I’m convinced that’s why we’ve seen so much early blessing from the Lord.

Like the sister who approached me following a panel at TGC’s conference this week. She used to work in Anacostia. She feels passionately about the people there and she’s been praying for a gospel preaching church to start in the community for over five years. She wasn’t praying for me or Anacostia River Church by name, but her prayers called us into being.

She’s not alone. There’s Stephanie and Jayme and Jodi and Chelsea, who all work and live in the neighborhood and have for years prayed that the Lord might send the reign of the gospel. There are the many churches already serving the Lord in the neighborhood who in spiritual maturity and utter unselfishness have prayed that the Lord would send laborers into the harvest. The Lord collects all these prayers and we have been seeing His answers.

Then there is the legion of people who began to pray for the plant when they first heard public announcements about it. Over a hundred people receive one staff person’s prayer letter and they faithful pray. On Twitter, via email, in blog comments and bumping into them, they tell us they’re praying. Beau Hughes and the saints at The Village flooded us with notes as they prayed for us during their morning service. That’s one congregation among many who tell us they’re praying for us.

Pastor Jeremy leading us in prayer as many others around the country were praying for us

The outpouring of prayer simply amazes me. We walk in the wake of these pleas with God.

And can I be completely honest? It comes during a season when personally I’m finding it difficult to pray. There’s no struggle with sin, no major family problems to distract, no overscheduled diary squeezing out time—just old fashioned difficulty in prayer. I do pray. I like to pray. But it’s a fight right now.

How kind of the Lord to show me that His blessings are not limited to my petitions. And His work will have intercessors even as He uses people who need intercession. Reminds me of something the apostle Paul once wrote: “You also must help us by prayer, so that many will give thanks on our behalf for the blessing granted us through the prayers of many” (2 Cor. 10:11). That’s what’s happening with us.

I guess when people ask, “How’s the church plant going?” I should reply, “God’s people are praying for us!”

Thank you very much for your love expressed in prayer! Reminds me of a little song we sang in my mama’s church and in Black churches everywhere:

Somebody prayed for me | Had me on their mind | Took the time and prayed for me

I’m so glad they prayed | I’m so glad they prayed | I’m so glad they prayed for me

]]>https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/somebody-prayed-for-me/feed/0How Deep the Root of Racism?https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/how-deep-the-root-of-racism/
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/how-deep-the-root-of-racism/#respondTue, 10 Mar 2015 04:00:00 +0000http://tgcstaging.wpengine.com/thabiti-anyabwile/how-deep-the-root-of-racism/When my wife and I purchased our first home, I determined our lawn would be at least comparable to that lovely lush landscape of the guy two doors down. Our street took a lot of pride in curbside appeal. I joined them in the weekly ritual of weeding, seeding, planting, mowing, watering, raking, trimming and brimming with pride. I spent a lot of time rooting shrubs and flowers, and sometimes digging up the roots of things that needed to go. I learned something valuable while bent over my spade, turning mulch, and worming my fingers into loam to find the...]]>

When my wife and I purchased our first home, I determined our lawn would be at least comparable to that lovely lush landscape of the guy two doors down. Our street took a lot of pride in curbside appeal. I joined them in the weekly ritual of weeding, seeding, planting, mowing, watering, raking, trimming and brimming with pride.

I spent a lot of time rooting shrubs and flowers, and sometimes digging up the roots of things that needed to go. I learned something valuable while bent over my spade, turning mulch, and worming my fingers into loam to find the extent of root balls: Only well-rooted plants survive, and sometimes that means roots must run deep.

That came home in a powerful way when someone gave me a cactus to plant. Actually, it wasn’t even a complete cactus, just a leaf. They told me it would grow anywhere and wouldn’t need much attention. So I stuck it in the dirt at the mailbox, the pretty white mailbox perched atop a white post with colorful tulips painted on its side. The cactus was meant to be the backdrop to the dancing colors of real tulips surrounding the post. Soon the cactus grew. The one leaf became two, then doubled again. Before I knew it the cactus had taken over the mailbox area, drinking up all the moisture and nutrients. My tulips drooped, faded and died.

Finally I decided to remove the cactus and replant the small bed around the mailbox. That’s when I discovered how deep and wide cactus roots run! That sprawling system of tentacles forced me to dig up a sizable section of the front yard curb area! After a couple weekends of toilsome digging and searching—and a couple of weekends of hard looks from neighbors—I dug up the cactus, roots and all, and started anew.

In the last couple of weeks we’ve gotten a good glimpse into the root system of racism. We thought we could stick the racists into the country’s past, next to a post marked “obsolete,” and gladly forget about it. But the roots of racism run deep. That’s why an entire police department and many others appear shot through with indications of that insidious root system. That’s why we’re now inundated with reports of municipal governments and court systems complying with police to raise revenue on the backs of African Americans. And that’s why we’re watching youtube videos of students on college campuses—both secular and Christian—engaging in acts that are at least stupid and insensitive and in some cases plainly racist.

The roots run deep, deeper than the natural eye can see, beneath the soil of our hearts, our cultures and our institutions.

We need to do some digging—especially Christians and Christian leaders. It’s necessary we take the shovels from our garages, put on our gardening gloves, and get to weeding.

Seems to me a few things need to be recognized perhaps more fully and even gladly than they have been.

1. Racism Is Alive and Well.

Greatly exaggerated were any reports of racism’s demise. That should be obvious now. But just a few short months ago a lot of people pressed back against claims of racism. They told us we could not know for certain if any racist motivation were a part of incidents like Ferguson or Staten Island or Cleveland. These were sad events, some said. But perhaps these were isolated incidents, not connected, almost random. Why cry “racism”?

Well, now we have a look at the roots, sprawling beneath the soil of assumed respectability and authority. Ferguson, Staten Island, Cleveland and an untold number of other places all share the same root system. They all manifest human depravity, and that depravity sometimes takes the form of racial animus.

For my part, the DOJ report on the Ferguson Police Department tells us quite plainly that the vital signs of racism are quite strong. The old man lives. And more than that, the DOJ report decisively proves the prevailing reality of institutional racism and systemic injustice. Those numbers do not lie and they cannot be explained away as chance. And when the statistics say African Americans were less likely to be guilty of the crimes for which they were stopped than white drivers, then appeals to black criminality won’t do either. Still further, Ferguson isn’t alone among Missouri towns in these practices. And Missouri isn’t alone among the states. There’s a piling mound of research evidence that shows the same thing in other places as well.

Sad to say, but racism is alive and well.

2. Racism Cavorts with Power.

Rarely does racism walk alone. She dances with power. Not just the raw, unlettered, erratic power of stereotypical toothless hillbillies who sometimes “have a few too many” and cause trouble for brown-skinned people while embarrassing the good white-skinned town folks.

No. Racism acts far more seductively than that. She prefers men in robes or suits or uniform. She rathers young people wearing the letters of fraternities, with power over who can and cannot join their organizations. Racism makes her deals in country clubs, once segregated by club rules, now segregated by club fees and culture. Racism likes smoky rooms with dark cherry paneling, where the makers of futures and cities like to laugh, back slap, and cut deals. She would marry power, but that’s too public and people would talk. So she continues as power’s mistress, the unseen influence that poisons his heart toward his wife, Justice.

We cannot have any discussion of power without suspecting that fallen human alienation along racial lines is at least a possibility.

3. Racist Contexts Cast Clouds Over Us.

The root system of racism spreads beneath all our feet. There are a lot of people in Ferguson who had no clue about what was going on in its police department. They were sympathetic toward police and trusting of authority. They couldn’t see the cactus draining water and nutrient from their community.

But the DOJ describes a pervasive corruption along racial lines. That corrupt context informed the attitudes and actions of some officers and it created racially misinformed impressions about African Americans (i.e., more likely transporting or selling drugs, less respectful of law, more criminal). The shooting of Mike Brown, the police reactions to protests, the kangaroo grand jury and the aftermath all occur in this context, under this burgeoning cloud of racist stereotype, mistreatment, frustration and anger. That cloud bust and everyone got wet.

If we don’t let the winds of justice blow then we cannot be surprised if cumulus clouds of racial hostility form overhead. And we shouldn’t be surprised when the rain comes and it’s toxic. We can’t let racism go unchallenged or it’ll come back to hurt everyone.

4. Frat Boys and Judges Have A Lot in Common.

Here’s another kindness from the Lord: On the heels of reading the DOJ report and perhaps beginning to think to ourselves, Those racists in Ferguson are terrible, the Lord shows us that our children and our brightest students can be just as terrible.

Judges go to college. They make good grades. They lead student organizations. Then they graduate and begin legal careers. Some of them run for office and make public policy. The students in Oklahoma University’s SAE grow up to be prosecutors and judges and city officials. And guess what: Sometimes such students attend Christian colleges and universities.

Perhaps the Lord is telling us that this racist root system gives rise to that Ivy and Kudzu crawling up academic towers. If any of us think we’re immune by virtue of education and class, we ought to be careful lest we fall. Education doesn’t eradicate racism any more than it eradicates any other sin. We need something more profound, that reaches farther down in the human soul.

5. Racism Destroys Lives.

This point isn’t to be forgotten. When we talk about Ferguson’s criminal justice system or systemic injustice generally, we’re talking about the weight of the State crushing citizens. We’re talking about everyday people being harassed, imprisoned, and further impoverished by a government that’s supposed to be “of the People by the People for the People.”

To put it plainly: These things kill Black people. Sometimes slowly. Sometimes suddenly. But it’s always deadly. It could be the death of long sentences or the death of bullets. It could be the lingering death of poverty and resource restriction or the infectious death of disease and few health options. But it’s death.

Things are better compared to, say, 1960—which is to say the overreaching hand of deadly oppression has been beaten back through long years of protest. But the owners of the hand are not happy about being pushed back. So the snarled hand of racism continues to overreach. And it kills what it touches. That’s why none of this is a game and none of this should be left to our favorite talking heads, whoever they are.

6. This Is a Christian Discipleship Issue as Much as a Social Justice Issue.

Tell me what you think, but I’ve come to the conclusion that the Christian Church desperately needs to be discipled regarding “race,” racism and justice. I once thought the most significant deficiency in Christian theology (at least in the West) was a deficiency in the theology of suffering. But I think there’s more ink used to help people with suffering than there is to help people think of themselves primarily as Christians and radically apply their new identity in Christ to fallen categories like “race” and insidious sins like racism.

It’s tragic that the country’s biggest sin is racism and the Church’s biggest omission is racial justice. The tragedy gets compounded when one remembers that some quarters of the Church were once the strongest supporters of this sin. That means we’re working our way out of a deficit. The roots of racism are tangled with our faith. And this means we can’t assume some neutral stance, being formally against this sin but practically uninvolved. The root keeps creeping. We had better be weeding the garden of our faith and growing one another up into the fullness of Christ with attention to this anti-Christ called “racism.”

Over and over the question I get from genuine and well-meaning Christians is, “How can I think about…?” Or, “What should I do about…?” Those are discipleship questions that desperately need answering in every local church—assuming we don’t want the roots of racism to find any soil in the body of Christ.

Conclusion

The roots of racism run deep and wide. They’re deeper than the outward actions of a self-professed racist. That’s surface mulch.

They’re deeper than the actions of an officer in a corrupt police force. That’s only the potted soil.

We’re going to have to dig that deep to eradicate this poisonous root.

]]>https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/how-deep-the-root-of-racism/feed/0CROSS 2015: A Free, One-Night Missions Simulcast on Feb. 27https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/cross-2015-a-free-one-night-missions-simulcast-on-feb-27/
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/cross-2015-a-free-one-night-missions-simulcast-on-feb-27/#respondWed, 18 Feb 2015 05:00:00 +0000http://tgcstaging.wpengine.com/thabiti-anyabwile/cross-2015-a-free-one-night-missions-simulcast-on-feb-27/Editor’s note: Today’s post is by Isaac Adams, who works to serve the efforts of CROSS. I’ll be speaking at CROSS 2015 with my brothers and friends John Piper, David Platt, Mack Stiles, and Kevin DeYoung. We’d love to have you join us online for free!

CROSS exists to mobilize students for the most dangerous and loving cause in the universe: rescuing people from eternal suffering and bringing them into the everlasting joy of friendship with Jesus. To that end, we’re hosting a free simulcast on February 27. All you need to do is register here. And register soon so you can get special offers on missions resources (aka free ebooks!)

You can find more information and a free promotional pack here. If you’ve signed up, please help us spread the word by using the hashtag #PrayForWorkers on any social media and invite your friends.

If you’re hosting the event or want to know who’s watching it near you, this page is for you. We’re delighted that over 250 hosts across 40 states and 5 different countries will be hosting CROSS 2015.

I’m looking forward to thousands of people considering together the unshakeable hope we have in Christ, and how that hope grounds our confidence in taking our unstoppable gospel to the nations. My prayer is that you’ll consider how you can join in spreading God’s glory to the nations, and even that you’ll consider giving your life to God as a blank check to that end. Yes, giving your life a blank check is terrifying. But as our brother David Platt says in the video above, “Don’t forget who you’re giving the blank check to.” Will you join us?

]]>https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/cross-2015-a-free-one-night-missions-simulcast-on-feb-27/feed/0Letters to a Young Protestor, 8: Black Crimehttps://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/letters-to-a-young-protestor-8-black-crime/
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/letters-to-a-young-protestor-8-black-crime/#respondTue, 17 Feb 2015 05:00:00 +0000http://tgcstaging.wpengine.com/thabiti-anyabwile/letters-to-a-young-protestor-8-black-crime/Dear Niecie, What’s good? It’s been a while since I’ve written. I’m sorry about that. I trust school and life are good on your end? I came across video footage of another young man gunned down by officers on February 11th. He apparently threw a stone at an officer, for which he should have been subdued and arrested. But instead, the officers fired at him in a busy intersection, pursued him, and when he turned to surrender gunned him down. We learned from the Mike Brown incident that police are only justified in pursuing and using lethal force when their lives...]]>

Dear Niecie,

What’s good? It’s been a while since I’ve written. I’m sorry about that. I trust school and life are good on your end?

I came across video footage of another young man gunned down by officers on February 11th. He apparently threw a stone at an officer, for which he should have been subdued and arrested. But instead, the officers fired at him in a busy intersection, pursued him, and when he turned to surrender gunned him down. We learned from the Mike Brown incident that police are only justified in pursuing and using lethal force when their lives are in danger or the fleeing suspect is thought to pose significant harm to the public. Neither appears to be the case here. It’s an emotional scene.

Keep in mind this is not a dramatization; it’s real life. We live in an indescribable age–one where some officers of the law are caught on cell phone cameras slaying citizens they’re sworn to protect. Even citizens with disabilities who make no aggressive motion–as in this incident from a couple years back. Eight officers with a police dog fire 41 times at this young man, hitting him 14 times and killing him. Is there no officer among us wise enough to talk down a man like this or find a way to subdue him? It’s insane!

But whenever you raise the issue of ending police brutality or ending the mass incarceration of African Americans, you’re bound to run into a lot of people who quickly stress “black crime” as the main problem. They come armed with 2-3 statistics that they think buttress the legitimacy and efficacy of the criminal justice system.

Don’t be exhausted by these folks. Most are well meaning and they at least intend to base their position on some evidence. If they’re honest, they’re the folks you can have a good conversation with and the evidence gives you a good starting place free from a lot of the “noise” that comes with these discussions. Have those conversations as winsomely as you can and add some research that helps color in the picture with more details.

On that note, I came across something I thought you’d find helpful the inclosed pages from Michelle Alexander’s wonderful book, The New Jim Crow, might be helpful. Excuse all my highlights! I’m devouring this book. It’s so smoothly written and filled with a blend of true incidents, research and legal perspectives that I find it difficult to put down! Read it if you haven’t. Give it to those who seem willing to consider another point of view. They will in turns be appalled at what’s going on in the name of “justice” and ashamed (as I have been) that their positions could have been so ill-informed.

I’m also including a little spending money. You shouldn’t be poor just because you’re a student! I know you agree

It’s been too long since I’ve heard from you or written. I was glad to talk with your mom and see that she’s doing well with the new cancer treatments and to hear you’re doing well in school. I praise God for that.

I was also in turns a little amused and a bit shocked to hear about the run-in you had at a recent protest. I guess you’ve discovered that “racist” is a loaded term! There’s no longer any safe way to use the word, unless the person uses it of himself.

In fact, we’ve entered a time when any use of the term excites anger, confusion, feelings of abuse or manipulation, and a fair amount of eye-rolling. It’s become more difficult to prove that racism exists, not because the evidence isn’t there but because the term has been so misused and over-used for so long now. There’s a cultural backlash. No one likes to be called a “racist.” It’s become one of the ugliest labels you can use. The racist receives no respect from anyone. They are now reviled in much the same way they once reviled others. So it’s at once a powerful and a hated word. My dear niece, use it as sparingly as possible that you might label only when necessary and that it might retain its proper force.

That means we have to know a racist when we see one. And since being thought of as a racist is such a hated thing, many people work really hard to hide their true selves in order not to be labeled. Everyone want’s “plausible deniability.” The basic posture is defensive, evasive and even confrontational. If you don’t want another experience like that last protest, then learn how powerful that term is and learn how to identify a racist.

So, what is racism and who are the racists?

Racism is an effect of the fall of man into sin. When our first parents took fruit from the forbidden tree, defying God and risking life, part of the effect was an alienation from God and an alienation from one another. One specific form that alienation takes is racism. Because the fall touches all of humanity, racism is universal in extent. So mankind—even though related by descent from our common parents—lives in a chronic state of alienation and hostility until redeemed by Christ.

Racism depends on the false notion that there are biological races. Though disproven by genetic science and by good theology, people commonly believe that humanity can be separated into distinct racial categories based upon physical traits like skin color, hair texture, etc. Even some who know that the scientific basis for races is non-existent like to cling to the category as a “social construct.” But the pseudo-scientific quest for racial classification was in reality the sin of racism seeking scientific legitimacy and I fear much the same can happen with this “social” rendering of “races.” For racism wants to assign hierarchical worth and attributes to physical features—whether or not the science supports it. So white skin becomes more valuable than black, kinky hair worse than straight, and so on. That system of “racial” (it needs to be put in quotes as a reminder that what we’re talking about doesn’t really exist) hierarchy gets codified in social customs and public policy. And so it also gets transmitted as a philosophy and lifestyle to successive generations. This commitment to the supremacy of one group over another gets received as birthright and used as currency. Racism is an insidious and irrational disease rooted in our sinful natures.

The racist person suffers from this disease—in either benign or full-blown malignancy. I hope you see that this general definition of racism and racist applies equally to all of humanity without regard to skin color. To be a racist simply requires that you admit the idea of race and then you assign value and hierarchy to it. To assert “Black people cannot be racist” is, in fact, a racist counter-racist delusion. It assumes the moral superiority of Black people. But Black people can be as racist as anyone else—and some are. No one is exempt from this disease, though some have more virulent forms than others. Though many whites throughout history tried to climb to the top of the “racial” pyramid and plop themselves down as kings of the hill, you can find people of every background sitting up there with them.

Yet one can be a racist without being the group occupying the top step of the racial pyramid. One of racism’s most subtle and sinister victories has been to convince the racially oppressed that they are either all their racist oppressors believe about them or that by virtue of their oppression they are superior to those that hinder them. They thus accept racist ideology as an oppressed person and commit themselves to both racism’s continuance and their own subjugation—showing again the utterly serpentine irrationality of sin.

So it’s paramount that we learn to identify the racist thought, racist attitude, racist action, racist policy, and racist person. And it’s important that we know whether we’re dealing with a racist person—someone whose pattern and habit of life is committed to racial supremacy and superiority—or with a racist incident. For in a given incident anyone can act or think in a racist way, but that may not define the pattern of their lives. Do you see why this requires studied care?

I would generally class people into one of four categories. There is first of all the conscious racist. They actively commit themselves to racist ideology. They may be skinheads, or they may be as respectable as judges. Some people think the racist is the backwoods hillbilly full of ignorance. But that’s a stereotype believed in large measure because, again, everyone wants to maintain respectability. So it’s convenient to limit ugly outward racism to other socially despised people. But respectable racists walk freely among us, using the cloak of respectability to hide the worst of their sin. But we may know them because sooner or later they tell us they’re racists. They’re chomping at the bit to tell us, like Jack Nicholas’ character in A Few Good Men.

Second, there are the unconscious racists. These are folks who harbor all kinds of racist attitudes and beliefs but genuinely don’t know it. They’re blind to the ways racist assumptions wriggle like worms into their hearts. We know they are racists because their words reveal it. As our Lord put it, our words reveal what’s in our hearts, and sometimes that’s our racist bias. When you point it out, they’re often defensive. The defensiveness is sincere insofar as they don’t know they have the disease. They can’t bear to think such awful thoughts of themselves. They fear admitting racism is the worst possible thing. The sad tragedy, of course, is that they don’t recognize that actually continuing in unchecked prejudice is really the worst possible thing. Less defensiveness would actually free them more fully from the thing they hate.

Third, there are those who think they’re racists but probably aren’t. These are the falsely accused. They judge themselves too harshly and are unable to properly assess their motives. They think a racist incident (racist thought, speech, action or feeling) makes them racist persons. Unable to untangle the incident from the person, they live under illegitimate guilt. The same illegitimate guilt can be induced by manipulative and spurious charges of racism. Some call this “white guilt.” But it doesn’t belong uniquely to whites. Remember, the fall affects us all.

Fourth, there are—praise God—persons who are not racist and know they’re not racist. They recognize the difference between an incident and a person, and they and others can testify to a pattern of life largely free from sinful bias. When talking about these things, we must not fall into the trap of forgetting such people exist. But we must also resist two other things: letting real racists parade in this category and letting non-racists think that simply not being racist is enough. The non-racist, the true humanitarian, must be the greatest allies in actively opposing hostility, hatred, and injustice. They must be brought to see that their inaction in the face of present evil makes them complicit in the evil. Righteousness is a positive, active thing. We need active resolve to do what’s right if we ever hope for righteousness to reign.

Now, the hard part and the necessary part is to not blur the categories. That’s how good people get hurt and bad people get away. Thinking the “respectable” committed racist is a non-racist only allows him or her to spread their disease without diagnosis. And calling the person who wrongly judges themselves a “racist” does more to harm those with sensitive consciences and to weaken good-hearted support than just about anything you could do.

Begin with the incidents. Outward speech, actions and policy are easier to identify. Be sure not to castigate the person when it’s only appropriate to speak of the incident. That specificity is your friend, and it helps to reveal other friends. Persons opposed to racism will generally oppose racist incidents. Strive to only make legitimate and defensible linkages between incidents. That, too, requires care. Not everything that seems related is. But when you can link incidents, do so. It helps to establish patterns of individual behavior or systemic bias. When those patterns are demonstrable, then you can speak with passion about people and systems. Don’t hesitate to do so, but be prepared to defend the evidence for the pattern.

Honestly, everyone will have motives to resist your implying a racist pattern exists. The racist persons will not want to be exposed. Many good people will not want to think such ugliness exists in them or in the institutions they love. Self-interest wars against indictment. But trust that your patience, carefulness and the mounting moral pressure of conscience will begin to distinguish the willfully racist from those that can be won to righteousness.

What you should keep in mind, Niecie, is that you can tell a tree by the fruit it bears. We are unable to completely hide the root of our souls. Sooner or later our natures present themselves. Careful, patient observation of our own hearts and the actions of others will in time reveal the truth.

Bottom line: use the term “racist” sparingly. But when you must, use it confidently and redemptively. Far too often people throw away other people with the term. They write them off. So “racist” becomes a final pronouncement rather than an invitation to be different, better, free. When you use the term, give it the ring of an invitation to an important meeting where the hopeful and the broken might find help. As Christians, we want people to hear an invitation to repentance from sin and faith in Jesus Christ, who in the cross reconciled believers to God and to one another. We want them to hear a call to that fountain filled with blood drawn from Immanuel’s veins, where sinners plunged beneath that flood lose all their guilty stains. If ever “racist” could sound redemptive, inviting to restoration, then we’ll be speaking in the most Christian way to one of the wickedest heart diseases ever. I pray you and I can learn to speak that way.